THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS HIGH COURT'S RECENT RULING OVERTURNING THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE, AS ANNOUNCED IN LOPER LIGHT ENTERPRISES V. RAIMONDO, NO. 22-251[2024], AND RELENTLESS V. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NO. 22-1219 [JUNE 28, 2024], IS MANDATORY AUTHORITY ON THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATIONS AND DISPOSES OF THE "HIGHLY DEFERENTIAL" STANDARD OF IN RE LAWRENCE, 44 CAL.4THT.1181 [2008]; AND, IF SO, DID THE VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE VI TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ALSO ILLEGALLY DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW; REQUIRING REVERSAL1.

WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 5, 9, AND 14, AS A JUVENILE OFFENDER BY ILLEGALLY AND PREJUDICIALLY APPLYING THE OVERTURNED CHEVRON DOCTRINE,IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 4801[c].

WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 5, 9, 14, AS AN ELDERLY OFFENDER BY ILLEGALLY AND , PREJUDICIALLY APPLYING THE OVERTURNED CHEVRON DOCTRINE,IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 3055 [c].

Whether the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Enterprises ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine constitutes mandatory authority for California corrections and violates due process and equal protection