I. WHETHER PETITIONER SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED THE SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2253?

II. WHETHER PETITIONER SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF A 10-YEAR CONCURRENT PLEA DEAL OFFERED BY PRO SE (TR. P. 16,17), As to United States v. Day, 969 F.2d (3 . Cir. 1992), State v. Weakley, 2017-Ohio-8404?

III. WHETHER THE CONTINUING CUSTODIAL SUPERVISION OF PETITIONER IN THE ABSENCE OF A SENTENCE AND WITHOUT IN REM, IN PERSONA, OR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CONSTITUTES CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

IV. WHETHER A CONSTUTIONAL RIGHT OF HAVING BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY INDICTED 11 YEARS LATER WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR NEW EVIDENCE FROM AN ORIGINAL INDICTMENT THAT HAD BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION IN CR-07-491536-A. (TR.639-640) IN cr-17-614508-A. as to United States v. Mclemore,447 F. Supp. 1229, State v. Robertson 2010-Ohio-6185, State v. Michailides, 2018-Ohio-2399?

V. WHETHER PETITIONER SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSRATED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT OF WITHHOLDING ALL EXCULPATORY BRADY DISCOVERY EVIDENCE R.16 WHICH FILED MOTION DATED 11/21/2017, Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. at 87

Whether petitioner sufficiently demonstrated a substantial denial of a constitutional right to require the issuance of a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. §2253