Did Mr. German possess a Constitutional right to a SANITY-COMMISSION-HEARING, after his new lawyer raised issues as to his competency prior to the start of trial, immediately after new counsel enrolled?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ‘ ; IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.1 (A) Based on Drope v Missouri, Brown v Ohio, Blockburger v United States Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and Article 3 of the Bilateral Treaty by failing to notify him of his right to Consulate Assistance Osagiede v United States, and Miranda _v Arizona. Mr. German contends that this petition requires an answer to the following precedent-setting questions of EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE: 1) Did Mr. German possess a Constitutional right to a SANITY COMMISSION HEARING, after his new lawyer raised issues as to his competency prior to the start of trial, immediately after new counsel enrolled? . , 2) Did the State violate Mr. German's protection against DOUBLE JEOPARDY by prosecuting him for three crimes, the elements of two being totally encompassed within the third? ; 3) Did Mr. German, a Cuban National, have a Cons © stitutional right to a CUBAN TRANSLATOR and CONSULATE? & a * IN THE . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LEONARDO R. GERMAN . VERSUS SIMI HOOPERG WARDEN . Considering Governing Review on Certiorari under Rule #10(c) The Fifth Circuit clearly misapplied the Court's precedents regarding the issuance of a COA. The Court should review this case because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of Mr. German's COA conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.