Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in denying the defendant's request for two attorneys in a capital case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Fourth Circuit erroneously held — in conflict with the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3005 and in conflict with a 45-year split between the Fourth Circuit and the other circuits — that a trial court has the discretion to deny a defendant’s request for two attorneys, when the defendant stands indicted for a capital crime but the government chooses not to seek the death penalty. 2. Whether the mandatory life without parole sentencing scheme under 18 U.S.C. § 1959, as applied to an adult teenage defendant such as Guevara, violates the adult teenager’s Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution in conflict with this Court’s reasoning in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), by barring the district court from considering his youth, life history, and other important mitigating factors — such as evidence that, unlike his co-defendants, Guevara took no part in the planning of the murder, neither directed nor supervised any of his co-defendants’ criminal conduct, was not a member of the gang, and participated in the stabbing after his co-defendants, and only after being threatened and forced by them to do so.