Should this Court exercise its supervisory power under Supreme Court Rule 10 and grant review of petitioner's case?

QUESTION PRESENTED ; . shoulda this Court exercise its supervisory power under Supreme Court Rule 10 and Grant review of petitioner's case because the Sixth Circuit ignored his principal argument and thus "departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding," thereby depriving him of his right to an appeal and due process of law? Should this Court exercise its supervisory power under Supreme Court Rule 10 and grant review of petitioner's case because the Sixth Circuit ignored Supreme Court rulings that. held that the Right to Counsel is "Fundamental"; that the . ; right to counsel falls within the general rule of nonretroactivity and prisoner's may obtain relief on collateral . : review of claims based on a "new Watershed rule of criminal procedure," where the Right to Counsel of Choice is denied. Whether this case meets the standard for application to . to precedence set by the Supreme Court in the following Supreme Court rulings; 1. Luis v. United States, that the right to counsel is "fundamental" based on the Sixth Amendment, : granting a defendant "a fair opportunity to secure counsel of . choice" Also affirmed in Powell v. Alabama, 2. Also, the precedent set in the new watershed rule of criminal procedure, "implicating the fundamental fairness set in Saffe v. Parks, under Teague's second exception doctrine. i .