Was the presiding magistrate's analysis so flawed as to warrant this court to reverse and remand so that a correct legal standard may be applied?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I Was The Presiding Magistrate's Analysis So Flawed As To ' Warrent This Court To Reverse And Remand So That A : Correct Legal Standard May Be Applied ? pg 7. ; II Did The Government Waive Its Procedural Default Argument By Failing To Raise That Argument In The District Court During The Relevant Pre-Trial, And Trial Hearings Pursuant To Established Precedent In Faretta V CA. 422 U.S. (1972)? pe. : III Was There A Departure From Established pro-se Liberal Pleading Standards Resulting In Violation of Due Process ? pg 10. IV Was The Lower Courts Reasons or lack there of) For Denying Petitioner A Certificate Of Appealability "COA" Flawed? pg1l. v Was The Government's Legal Standard Grounded On Faretta v California 422 US 805 (1972) And Cook v Ryan 688 F3d 601 (9th Cir 2012) Flawed As To Warrant Remand:? pg 12. ; VI Was The District court's Decision Adopting The Magistrate's Report And Recommandation SoFlawed As To Compell Summary ; « Reversal And Remand To Correct A manifest Injustice? pg 19 VII Did A Fundamental Miscarriage Of Justice Occur When The Lower Court's Failed To Correctly Apply Court<PRrecedent Contrary To Massaro v United States 538 U.S. 500 (2003) ? pg 20. . VIII Was 21 USCS § 846 And 21 uSCS § 841A (a)(1) Unconstitu, tionally Applied To Petitioner, Rendering Petitioner Actually Innocent Of. A Violation Of Those Statutes? pg 24. i