Did the Court of Appeals err or abuse its discretion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Court of Appeals err or abuse its discretion when upon reading Appellate Counsel's single-issue Brief, that,' . in context, was a matter of law already decided in a binding Circuit decision eighteen years earlier (ana ergo frivolous), that the Circuit did not consider Counsel's Brief a de facto ; equivalent to a "no merits" Anders. Brief, where such a : : designation sua sponte (alternatively, order to Counsel to "resubmit Brief under Anders) would have provided Appellant with (a) the opportunity to raise his own issues; (b) a . ' review of the Record by the Court of Appeals; (c) and should , meritorious issues be discovered, the appointment of new . Appellate Counsel, that such a failure to act sua sponte ; in so designating the Brief (or ordering Counsel to correct) constituted Constitutional bue Process and/or Equal Protection violations of Appellant? ; 2. Did the Court of Appeals err or abuse its discretion when _* . it failed ‘to recognize and address the Circuit's own . : . -conflicting cases as cited in.the Petition for Rehearing/ . . . Rehearing En. Banc, where such conflicts directly prejudiced : Appellant to understand exactly what the case law of the Circuit was, and how to adapt his issues and arguments for (a) submissions to the Court of Appeals; (b) Appellate . : : Review; and (c) avoidance of Procedural Default? . a. . roe a . 3. As in Question Two, adding in the context of the case law : and/or actual practices of the Circuit being also in conflict with the Supreme Court's rulings and case law? 4. Did the Court of Appeals err or abuse its discretion when . “it declined to Rehear or Rehear En Banc the instant case, : whose circumstances and Order were in conflict with its own Circuit precedents and the Supreme Court, where herein the Clerk of the Court issues denial Orders of a constitutional magnitude, beyond the ministerial duties of her Office, ; : prejudicing Appellant of his rights as outlined in Chapman v. California, et al., in the Direct Appeal process, that has subsequently created further prejudice by limiting issues : and triggering the higher bar for relief on §2255, where procedural default must.be overcome, and where only Constitutional grounds, and not procedural matters, are "| permissible? / . , . aii . : © . ’ .