Whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has misapplied the standards set forth in Miller-El v. Cockrell and Buck v. Davis

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HAS ENTERED A DECISION IN CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF ANOTHER UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ON THE SAME IMPORTANT MATTER AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS COURT'S SUPERVISORY POWER REGARDING A QUESTION LEFT UNANSWERED IN MARSHALL V. RODGERS, 569 U.S. 58 (2013). : WHETHER THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS MISAPPLIED THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), AND BUCK V. DAVIS, 137 S.CT. 759 (2017), WHICH ALLOWS DEFENDANTS TO APPEAL ADVERSE § 2255 RULINGS THROUGH CERTIFICATE REGARDING WHETHER A NEW TRIAL MOTION FILED WITHIN THE REQUIRED 14 DAYS AFTER THE JURY VERDICT OF FINDINGS, IS A CRITICAL STAGE WHERE A DEFENDANT MAKES A REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WHETHER A DEFENDANT WITH A HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS CAN VALIDLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL ABSENT A MENTAL EVALUATION OR COMPETENCY HEARING PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 4241