Did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals violate Circuit Operating Rule 6(b) when failing to reassign panels?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : 1. DID THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (CA7) VIOLATE CIRCUIT OPERATING RULE 6(b) WHEN FAILING TO REASSIGN THE “SUCCESSIVE MOTION APPEAL" PANEL ("C" — below) UNDER 18-1617 TO THE "ORIGINAL MOTION APPEAL” UNDER 14~2711 ("B"— below) AND, FAILURE TO ASSIGN THE “ORIGINAL . MOTION APPEAL" ("B"-below) UNDER 14-2711 TO THE “ORIGINAL DIRECT APPEAL" PANEL UNDER 12-2771? 2. WAS THE "ORIGINAL DIRECT APPEAL" ("A"— below) UNDER 12-2771 DEPRIVED OF THE {PIECES] OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE BONAFIDE CRIMINAL RULE 33(b)(1) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (DOC. 172), FILED AT A "CRITICAL STAGE" OF THE "CRIMINAL" PROCEEDINGS "WHILE THE DIRECT APPEAL REMAINED PENDING" AND GOVERNED UNDER THE CONTROLLING PROVISIONS OF : “CRIMINAL RULE 37", ONLY TO FACE THE IN TERROREM ULTIMATUM OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S INVOKED "JUDGE-MADE RULE" RECHARACTERIZATION ORDER (DOC. 196)? 3. CAN A BONAFIDE CRIMINAL RULE 33(b) (1) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WITH NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE BE RECHARACTERIZED AS THAT OF A "COLLATERAL" §2255 "WHILE THE DIRECT APPEAL REMAINED PENDING"? : A, DID THE “GENERAL REMAND" ORDER BY THE “ORIGINAL MOTION APPEAL" ; ("B"— below) PANEL UNDER 14-2711 “LIMIT" THE CLAIMS PETITIONER COULD . RAISE IN THE REMANDED: RULE 33 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL? . 5. DID THE "SUCCESSIVE MOTION APPEAL" ("B"-— below) PANEL UNDER 18-1617 ARBITRARILY GRANT REASSIGNED APPOINTED APPELLATE COUNSEL'S “ANDERS BRIEF" WITHOUT ADDRESSING PRTITIONER'S “PRO SE" CLAIM THAT SAID , COUNSEL STRAINED UNDER CONFLICT THROUGH DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED POSITIONS? , Il. ; PREVIOUS APPEALS TAKEN A. ORIGINAL ‘DIRECT! APPEAL: .12=2771, 739 Fi3D 1001 (1¥8-14), Affirmed PANEL: Diatie P. Wodd, Chief Judge Joel M. Flaum, Circuit Judge . . : John D. Tinder, Circuit Judge (