Whether the Court of Appeals failed to apply the existing basis of (a) Potential, (b) Pendent, (c) 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651(a) review by Mandamus, (d) 28 USCS 1292(a)(1) jurisdiction to review injunctions, and (e) collateral review of constructive, implied denial of Motion for Substitution of capital habeas counsel

No question identified. : CAPITAL HABEAS CASE Introductory Statement: Circumstances of the Case (per R.14.1(a) & 10/2015 Memo by Clerk): In case 18-3292 Court of Appeals erroneous dismissal of collateral appeal without exercising its (a) Potential, (b) Pendent, (c) 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651 (a) review by Mandamus in aid of appeal, and (d) 28 USCS 1291(a)(1) jurisdiction to review injunctions and (e) collateral jurisdictions to review the constructive, implied denial of Motion to Substitute capital habeas counsel Mr. Yeazel by district court in abuse of discretion by not exercise its discretion, all these five basis of jurisdiction claimed in timely filed (Doc.22) per 6" Cir. IOP (a)(1)(A) rule. The exercise of 28 US.C.S. § 1651 Jurisdiction, was required under 6" Cir, Precedents and by Firestone, 449 U.S. at 378 n.13. The Petitioner was appointed two habeas counsels (ECF#03, Sept. 13, 2007) in capital habeas case 2:07-CV-658.. The collateral appeal was taken from two filed Orders and one implied denial with out ruling on Motion to Substitute Attorney Keith A. Yeazel (ECF.132-1) and from four injunction orders, mentioned in Notice of Appeal at pages | to 4. By 01/30/18 Order, magistrate judge granted the conditional withdrawl (