Prison and post-release supervision

1. Whether the district court erred in recharacterizing Petitioner’s First Amendment constitutional petition for redress of grievances as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, thereby subjecting it to the one-year statute of limitations under § 2255(f) and dismissing it as untimely? 2. Whether the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987, which mandates that probation “shall not be imposed if a sentence is also imposed for the same offense,” prohibits the combination of incarceration with supervised release when supervised release is functionally indistinguishable from probation? 3. Whether Petitioner’s sentence of incarceration combined with supervised release violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as constituting multiple punishments for the same offense? 4. Whether the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing, where substantial constitutional questions were raised, violated the procedural Due Process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment? 5. Whether the courts below, acting under color of law, subjected Petitioner to the deprivation of rights secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983), by enforcing an unlawful sentence structure that deprives Petitioner of liberty, equal protection, and the full and equal benefit of the laws, in violation of rights protected under the Reconstruction Amendments? 6. Whether government actors, acting under color of law, violated § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by causing Petitioner to be subjected to deprivation of secured rights through the imposition and continuation of a constitutionally defective sentence, thereby committing acts cognizable as federal misdemeanor offenses under 14 Stat. 27-30?