Delores L. Knight v. United States

One: Whether the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit acted without jurisdiction when the District Court dismissed Petitioner’s second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on December 2025 without authorization, and the Sixth Circuit accepted an unauthorized referral and issued a ruling on matters over which it lacked authority, rendering both orders void? AppendixA1-A2-B2 & H Two: Whether the sentencing court violated Petitioner’s due process rights by denying access to the pre-sentence report and attributing the full financial liability of a jointly owned S-Corp, resulting in a loss exceeding $8,000,000, solely to Petitioner based on her ownership interest, where the pre-sentence report itself states that zero client suffered a loss? Appendix-C pp.1-2 Three: Whether newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, including the prosecutor’s suspension documented in the Inspector General’s report Disciplinary Counsel v Bennett, 2023-Ohio - 4752, case No. 2023-0471 the Supreme Court publicly disciplined Bennett. Also the conspiracy timeline for Petitioner spanning November 2007 to November 2014 involving three companies, establishes that the prosecution’s case was materially false, when one of the companies, Elegance Home Health did not exist until February 2014, thereby denying Petitioner a fair trial? Apbpendix-D &P 2/35 No.26-3509, Delores Knight, Pro Se Four: Whether Newly discovery email of 2021 from the Medicaid legal department stating that Medicaid possessed no records. That supporting the loss finding ,underlying Petitioner’s conviction. Constitutes newly discovered evidence, that could not have been discovered earlier. Through Petitioner’s exercise of due diligence, thereby satisfying the gateway requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) for authorization to file a second or successive motion? Appendix M- Q Five: Whether Petitioner’s due process rights were violated when the official certified trial transcript omits the prosecutor’s closing argument statement -in which the prosecutor acknowledged that Petitioner’s own counsel declared her guilty,” a statement confirmed on court audio recording but absent from the written transcript? Appendix F Six: Whether Petitioner’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated ;when the appellate court clerk mailed copy only of the received and stamped copy to Petitioner’s, requests for appointment of counsel on February 3, 2025 and April 13, 2026, but failed to docket either request, therefore forcing Petitioner to proceed without representation. Later petitioner’s receipt of correspondence on 2/06/2025 referencing case number 23-4010 dated 12/18/2023 a docket number Petitioner had no prior knowledge of until maileing of 02/06/2025- demonstrates that the court assigned and maintained an active docket without providing constitutionally required notice to the Petitioner?’ Appendix O pp. 1-3 Seven: Whether the district court violated Petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by attributing a false statement to Petitioner during co-defiidant’s sentence modification’s proceeding without 3/35/35 No.26-3509, Delores Knight, Pro Se • 4 notice ,without petitione’s presence resulting in the unauthorized combination of Petitioner’s appellate record with co-defendant’s record? Appendix T2 pp. 1-6 Eight: Whether this Court’s earlier consideration of Petitioner’s constitutional claims in case number 19-7863, combined with the government waived of response , and the Court failure to resolve those claims now obligates this Court to require the government to answer and deliver the constitution relief Petitioner has sought. Given the emergence of new evidence? Appendix S-l &S2 ‘Nine: Whether the prosecutor and clerks repeated filing of unauthorized Inre proceedings using Petitiner’s name across multiple cases, beginning in December 2023,2025 and continuing through 2026, prior to Petitioner’s filing of a 288 U.S.C 2244 application received June 1 2026, and a threejudge panel’s rulings twice on tose unauthorized proceedings, created procedural confusion, void rulings, and a systematic violation of Petitioner’s constutional rights under the 14th Amendment and fraud upon the court? Appendix Al-A2-G pp.1-3 & H pp.1-2 &J&K&L&N& O pp.1-3 &R Ten: Whether a federal appellate court violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it attributes a material statement to a witness in its written opinion, when the complete trial transcript on record confirms that witness never made such a statement, and where that witness received no notice or opportunity to correct the record before the court used that attribution to reduce a defendant’s sentence? Appendix T -1 & T-2 pp.1-6 Eleven: Whether a clerk and other and prosecutor’s unauthorized submission of In Re filings under petitioner’s name caused the court to consolidate motions and deny relief that petitioner never 4/35 No.26-3509, Delores Knight, Pro Se requested, constituting a violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights. Appendix Al &A@ & G pp. 1-3 & Hpp.1-2 & J & K &L & N &O pp. 3 & R 5/35/35 No.26-3509, Delores Knight, Pro Se