Is it unconstitutional for a U.S. Court of Appeals to accept, sanction or make decisions that allow state courts to refuse to accept meritorious issues a person had to file pro se because his attorneys refused to and the courts wouldn't appoint different attorneys

QUESTION PRESENTED IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TO ACCEPT, SANCTION OR MAKE DECISIONS THAT: ALLOW STATE COURTS TO REFUSE TO. ACCEPT MERITORIOUS ISSUES A PERSON HAD TO FILE PRO SE BECAUSE HIS ATTORNEYS REFUSED TO AND THE COURTS WOULDN'T APPOINT DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS; &/OR: ALLOW. THE FEDERAL:DISTRICT COURT , TO ALSO REFUSE TO ACCEPT NECESSARY PRO SE/HYBRID: PLEADINGS AND IMPROPERLY CLAIM THE STATE PROSE. ISSUES WERE UNEXHAUSTED/BARRED INSTEAD OF ACCEPTABLE UNDER OS . _ U.S. CODES YET NOT REMAND THEM BACK TO STATE COURTS FOR EXHAUSTION’ BUT RATHER . DENY THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES THRU UNLAWFUL &/OR UNOONSTITUTIONAL MEANS SUCH AS FINDING IT OKAY THE JURY CHARGE ADDED OTHER ACTORS AND A LAW OF PARTIES SCHEME TO AN INDICTMENT COUNT WHICH CHARGED ONLY THAT ONE PERSON AS A SOLE 5 ACTOR; OKAY FOR A FATAL/MATERIAL VARIANCE, OKAY FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT, OKAY THE CAPITAL MURDER CONVICTION WAS AN UNPOLLED GENERAL. VERDICT INVOLVING "g/OR" SCENARIOS: WITH MULTIPLE: PEOPLE."AND INVALID ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF GUILT ; NOE EQUATING TO CAPITAL MURDER, AND OKAY THE DISTRICT JUDGE ALSO THREW IN AN . UNCHARGED UNPRESENTED ELEMENT ALL. TO WRONGFULLY AFFIRM THE SUFFICIENCY AND CONVICTION; THEN THEMSELVES: DIRECTLY FAIL TO APPLY PERTINENT U.S. CODES, MISAPPLY A CIRCUIT SPLIT OF SCHLUP, AND REFUSE TO CONDUCT A JACKSON REVIEW OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE PERSON'S ATTORNEY ~ WHEREBY ALLOWING THE PERSON TO BE EXECUTED EVEN THO HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO GET HIS CLAIMS HEARD AND PROVE HIS INNOCENCE EVEN BEYOND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE . EVIDENCE ISSUES THAT TRIAL COUNSEL ALSO REFUSED TO ARGUE AND WHICH WARRANT ACQUITTAL NOW ON APPEAL; &/OR DOES THIS CUMULATIVE EFFECT NOT EQUATE 0 A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MERITING IMMEDIATE DETERMINATION IN THIS COURT BEFORE ; , , SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS FAIRLY INCLUDED THEREIN THE QUESTION PER RULE 14.1) (a) Is it unconstitutional to execute a person when the evidence was legally insufficient to have convicted him? (b) Is it violations of Notice &/or Due Process to indict a person as being the sole or only actor of a crime but’ then add other actors into a jury charge under a law of parties scheme, or must the indictment count charge that other actors/"parties" (even unnamed) are also somehow involved in the first place? . (c) Is it unconstitutional (&/or in violation of Chiarella &/or Dunn) for appellate courts to add uncharged unpresented elements into assessing the sufficiency of the evidence ‘to affirm a person's conviction? (d) Is it unconstitutional to uphold a conviction when there was a . fatal/material variance? ; : (e) Is it unconstitutional to uphold a conviction when there was a constructive amendment? : (£) Is it unconstitutional to uphold a conviction based on an unpolled general verdict where the additions of "and/or" and multiple persons created invalid alternative theories not charged in the indictment and constituted different uncharged offenses making it unknown what or how’ to appeal the conviction? (g) Is it unconstitutional .(&/or in violation of Jackson v. VA.) for Circuit Courts to refuse to make a Jackson determination on the sufficiency of the evidence requested by the appellant's attorney? (h) Is it cruel and unusual punishment &/or violations of Due Process &/or the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances to execute persons who get strapped with ineffective or even sabotaging attorneys and exercise all due diligence trying everything they could to prove their: innocence &/or get meritorious claims heard, but the Circuit, federal and State Courts i refused to appoint new attorneys or accept their filings solely because they were made pro se? (i) Should it be a Right to proceed pro se in direct. appeal? (4) In light of McCoy v. LA., should that ruling extend to appellate attorneys _ who refuse to file their clients’ lawful choices for the objectives of their appeals; especially in direct appeal, and death penalty cases? ; (k) Shoul