Question not identified

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; 1. Consistent with this Coiirt's decision in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. at 60-61 (1963). When the disclosure of the name of confidential informant. is “yelevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way." May Roviaro, be applied ; retroactively to set-aside the conviction in this case, because there is evidence in the record, showing that an ["alleged criminal confidential informant"], had “helped set up an ["“entrapment controlled buy"]? , 2. Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to get an arrest warrant first, prior to officers placing a person under surveillance, in order to set-up defendant for [“entrapment™ controlled buy"] purchase, based upon alleged . criminal confidential informer's information? , which led to illegal home search. 3. Did the law enforcement officers needed separate judicial authority to enter — . the home of Mr. Ardd, and started to search his home without ~ a ~ search warrant? 4. Consistent with this Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington;: 466°U.S. at 691 (2004); and Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003). Is it a Sixth Amendment violation, when appellate attorney failure to present facts, and ignored significant and obvious issues on direct appeal? Does constitutional violation occur: when. defendant's appellate attorney refused to file petition for writ of certiorari on behalf of defendant, after the Sixth Circuit having affirmed defendant's conviction and sentencing? 5. Is the:Sixth Circuit's decision in this instant case,-in conflict with the Suprenie Court of the United States’ decision("s") in Brady, Franks, and Roviaro?