Thomas Edward Nesbitt v. Scott Frakes

The untrained pro se Appellant respectfully attempts to succinctly present from the trial record, compelling justiciable Constitutional reasons of error for the Writ to issue in this exceptional No-Crime case of ACTUAL Innocence involving an Accidental SelfInduced Drug Overdose Death, as Law and Justice would require. (28 U.S.C. § 2243). The 1-28-19 wholly obscure one-line Court of Appeals ignored denials, thoroughly departed from any accepted course of Jurisprudence norms, in direct CONFLICT with this Court’s controlling precedents, emphatically calling for the attended exercise of Certi­ orari authority to resolve these Conflicting Judicial abuses.(App. la) 1. Does the Appellate Court’s obscure Panel Denials, violate the 1996 A.E.D.P.A. Constitutional Due Process Question in Conflict with the Certiorari Deci­ sions of this Court in (l), Castro v. U.S., 540 U.S. 375 (2002), and (2), in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), Non-Successiveness precedents, where upon § 2253 C.O.A.’s issued, prohibited § 2254 District and Appellate Courts from wrongly creating “. . . Trouble­ some Results ... ”, “ . . . Procedural Anomalies . . . “ . . . Closing Courtroom Doors.... ”, contrary to Con­ gress intent? (pp. 8-10) Did the Court of. Appeals Panel further deny 22 U.S.C. § 2253 C.O.A. in Conflict of this Court’s controlling “. . . . ACTUAL INNOCENCE . . .” A.E.D.P.A. Habeas “ . . . Gateway Exception ...” substantive Mandate of McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), overruling Troublesome Results and Procedural Anom-