Whether Mr. Sean Trent Barnes' decision to waive counsel and represent himself was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : . . I. The issue subsuming all ‘other issues in this appeal is whether or not, Mr. Sean Trent Barnes, while incarcerated in pre-trial cus' tody as a federal prisoner in the Eastern District of North Carolina, , should have undergone a competency examination in order to determine . if his decision to waive counsel and represent himself: was-made volun— tarily, knowing, and intelligently made. A district court's failure to conduct a comptency hearing on its own motion will always be subject to plain error review. Moreover, the district court's failure to rs conduct a comprehensive competency hearing or evaluation must be construed and viewed upon as an abuse of discretion by this Court. : ‘ , II. Whether the District Court erred when it accepted Mr. Barnes' ; guilty plea without determining a factual basis and ensuring that . Mr. Barnes truly understood the nature of the charges in violation of ; Rule 11 and constituting plain error. III. Whether this Court should grant certiorari in light of this Court's , . opinion in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan as Mr. Barnes was duped by retained counsel Jim Melo, Esq. into pleading . guilty with the "promise" and "guarantee" of a five year sentence pur: suant to a plea agreement to distribute and possess with intent to : . distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. : §§ 841(a)(1),(6)(1) (A), 846 (2012). The District Court increased Mr. ° Barnes total offense level by six levels when incorporating findings that were nothing more than debatable hearsay and not proven beyond a .reasonable doubt or admiitted to by Mr. Barnes in the plea agreement.