Did the Sixth Circuit err when its opinion failed to analyze Petitioner's issues according to the legislative directive that Public Act 283 is retroactive?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : I Did the Sixth Circuit err when its opinion Fooled to analyze Petitioner's issues accocing to tha Lenistative directive, thet Fublic Ace 283 iS refroachye ? I. Did the Sixth Circuik ere when it opined that “Thus” the Mari\uana, in the coom that was acCeSsible to peithoner coulda be attributable to him and he would noe be entitled to $4 immunity for the POSSeSSidA of it because the Stor@ of the PAO UOMO did not Comply with the Mama? UELDid the Sixth Ciecuit eve when i+ opined thot, Pe toner was not entitled. to len ani ty under (4) above becouse any assistance td o regiStered ualified patient must be limited +o the use or hainteteation of the mariivane, Which Michigan Supreme determined is contuck involving on she actual ingestion of Mari} uence Me Queen, 493 Mich ee 5B, While the sale of medica) marijuana. iS included within the defination of medical use" of Mariiuone., McQueen, 493 Mich at 152, the trang: fer, delivery, and acquisition of Mo UaNa ore three ackivities thak are i port of the “medical use" of Marijuana thot the drafters of the MMMA chose not to include as protected activities within $4C))." Ids at 153? IM Did the Sith Circuit errand gbuge its diseretion and deny Peritioner his Due Process right toa Far tial When it declined to determine the amount of Mariiuana in Possession of Petitioner For purpase sp Section + and % immunity affirmakive defense. in Counts 4, Sand ? Ve Did the Sith Girreuit err when it opined that Petitioner also claims, thak the tal Court abused its diserebion in ordering, a blanket prohibition against the admission of MMMA evidence. Pétibioner contends that these errors riSe@ to the level of Consh tutional) deprivations ,. We disearee VI. Did the Sixth Geeuit ece When it opined that the trial Cow did not abuse it discretion when . it failed fo allow the jury te determine whether rain todning ve drug houSe was the substuntia) pur pose of the user oF the Property ak the two locations in Counts 4 and 9 as the Micon Supreme Court required in People v. Thempson, 477 Mich 107, 730 NWad 78 C2007) Gi) and trie) Counse} was inefPertive foe foilure to Know Pre low and reguest the additiona| Clarifying suey InStructions. P VII, Wos we evidence insufficient in Counts 3 and 7 that Petitioner aided and obbetted dayson Hunt & Mike Holloway to illegally distribute moriJuana. ? (iii)