Whether Congress intended for an order under the Stored Communications Act to be sufficient to authorize real time tracking of cell phone generated Cell Site Location Information?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Congress intended for an order under the Stored Communications Act to be sufficient to authorize real time tracking of cell phone generated Cell Site Location Information? 2. Whether Petitioner's trial attorneys’ failure to understand the Stored Communications Act, together with their failure to conduct basic legal research into the Warrant requirements pertaining to the collection of historical Cell Site Location Information, as well as the active tracking of real time Cell Site Location Information constituted deficient performance resulting in prejudice to Petitioner sufficient to deprive petitioner of a fair trial? 3. Whether this Court's decision in Carpenter v United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206, applies retroactively to the Petitioner, where the decision was foreshadowed by and predictable from the Court's decisions in Jones v United States, 565 US 400 [2012] and Riley v California, 573 US 373 [2014] and Petitioner's conviction went final in 2016? 4. Whether, in the alternative, Petitioner should be able to be heard as to his Carpenter claim under the Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice Exception to the procedural default rule where he was clearly aggrieved by ineffectiveness of his trial counsel and that ineffectiveness is the sole reason for the procedural default? 5. Whether the Trial Court's correctly interpreted the Carpenter holding when it held that the State complied with the Carpenter holding because they had established probable cause in their SCA affidavit? 2 STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES The caption of the case in this Court contains the names of all of the