(1) Whether Petitioner was induced to take a plea agreement when Judge T. Michael Scolnghts stated "The Court... we go through all this, tell these other Courts rue dismissed... they've gone... the only reason Petitioner took a plea is because Petitioner believed she would get a lesser sentence" to 4 counts based on Judge T. Michael Scolnghts statements which Petitioner relied on to taking a plea deal. See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 U.S.Ct. 2d 343 (2012) obligating "the sole advantage a defendant would be able to receive under a plea is a lesser sentence."

(2) Whether on August 2024 (Judge Michael Scolnght) violated by own order to 42 U.S.C. § 2254 cure a substantial right violation twice Petitioner did not have proceed with a change of plea by Videotex United States v. Sulbieut, 2 U.S. on Tail, written, which was done 12 days after Petitioner filed her Motion to Withdraw My Plea As A Violation of My United States Constitutional Rights Amendment One, Fourteen, Sixth, Fourteenth, Eighth of Circuit (Procedural Misconduct) Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 11, Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 11, (July 2024) Petitioner should have been allowed to withdraw her plea?

(3) Whether Petitioner have shown prejudice from the use of the video and teleconference during Petitioner's change of plea as Petitioner would not have proceeded with her guilty plea if she waited to appear in person if the district court made more of detailed findings for the need of teleconference, United States v. Dominguez, 604 F.3d 1087, 124 S.Ct. 2433 (8 L.Ed. 2d 1st (2006)) "The point... is to enquire whether the error would have made the difference required by the standard of reasonable probability" and her plea should have been allowed to withdraw?

(4) Whether Petitioner should have been allowed to withdraw her plea when she claimed her innocence to identity theft as she was approved to open up a corporate credit card for the non-participation by Chairman Leona Chin who died two months after approving corporate account so she was not card fraud or identity theft and Petitioner should have been allowed to withdraw her plea?

(5) Whether Statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived by a plea agreement as the alleged crime took place on March 30, 2012 and was charged years later, the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived, and Conviction should be overturned (John R. Sand Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 50 (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1658, 170 L.Ed. 2d (2008)).

(6) Whether when United States Attorney (AUSA) signed off on the 3-level reduction in which in plea agreement with a AUSA would be given some tolerance of responsibility?

Whether Petitioner should have been allowed to withdraw her plea when she claimed innocence and identity theft allegations existed