Rehearing En Banc Guidelines

is an rehearing enbanc allowed to be filed if denied

even as to a second habeas corpus

even if teh clerk ordered therer would be none.

the clerked stated in teh order there is no appeal from the order does this mean enbanc they stated there is no certiorari in 3rd circuit for a second habeas

How many Pages can it be for enbanc

but its a mult case

it is a multiple docket case

yes

Rule *(b)(*] is not absolute

how many copies of the petition

do i have to send one to district attorney

SO FOUR COPIES TO THE 3RD CIRCUIT OF ENBANC

what law gives him the right to file enbanc

what other law

help persuade the court of custody status, as he is mentally imprisoned, compounding his ability to think clearly. This took * hours straight to achieve.

yes for enbanc

yes it should can he argue that t ostate he is in custody and needs enbanc

after you file enbanc petition, then what is done

Can I then file to the us supreme court a Writ of Mandamus compelling court of appeas to issue coa

if denied enbanc and after dfenial of his coa, what can a 34 year wrongly convcited person do

would federal civil suit be best

both

A wrongful conviction has no timelines in pa

after you file in banc petition there is noting else petitioner files for it

Petitioner’s application is denied. To the extent that Petitioner seeks to use the application as a vehicle to challenge habeas rulings made by this Court and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania over a decade ago, he may not do so. The application otherwise appears to seek permission to file a habeas petition that would attack several unrelated, decades-old convictions, including juvenile convictions. But it does not appear that Petitioner is still “in custody” with respect to any of those convictions. See Piasecki v. Ct. Com. Pl. Bucks Cnty., Pa., * F.3d *, *- * (3d Cir. *) (“A federal court has jurisdiction to entertain a [habeas] petition . . . only if the petitioner was in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court when the Case: *-* Document: * Page: * Date Filed: */*/* petition was filed.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Pet’r’s Second Resp. Final Suppl. to Show Cause Order, at PDF p. * (* letter from Pennsylvania State Police, informing Petitioner that he is “no longer required to register as a sexual offender with the Pennsylvania State Police” and “no longer required to verify or report a change of [his] address, employment, schooling or other required information to the Pennsylvania State Police”). Furthermore, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that (*) Petitioner could meet the “in custody” requirement, and (*) Petitioner needs our permission to attack each of the convictions at issue here (except for his conviction for sex-related offenses, it does not appear that he has previously attacked his convictions in a federal habeas petition), we would conclude that he has failed to meet the standard for relief under * U.S.C. § *(b). That is, Petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that his proposed habeas petition relies on (A) a new rule of constitutional law that the United States Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review, or (B) new and diligently discovered facts that, “if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found [him] guilty of the underlying offense[(s)].” * U.S.C. § *(b)(*); see * U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(C). To the extent that Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel, “emergency review,” and other, miscellaneous relief, those requests are denied.