Whether the 3rd Circuit's denial of the Petitioner's 2255 Motion directly violates this Court's decisions in the U.S. v. Lee, Hinton v. Alabama and Strickland v. Washington, and whether this Court should exercise its supervisory powers

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question IWhether the 8rd Circuit’s denial of the Petitioner’s 2255 Motion directly violate this Court’s decisions in the U.S. v. Lee, Hinton v. Alabama and Strickland v. Washington, and shouldn’t this Court exercise its supervisory powers, when the counsel admitted failing to research and inform the Petitioner regarding the federal ; regulations that will reveal a defense to the allegations in Indictment to which, a misadvised Petitioner pled guilty to, instead of exercising his constitutional right to a trial, resulting in a denial of the whole judicial process? Question IT: Whether it violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause when a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, which, at the time of the plea, was based on confusing federal regulations which allowed and did not prohibit his conduct, and doesn’t at least a rule of lenity apply? : Question III: Here, reasonable jurists have debated whether the relevant clause of the Medicare regulation in effect at the time of the underlying conduct, i.e., 42 C.F.R. § 410.40(d)(2), accepted certificates of medical necessity as the only proof of ; : medical necessity for ambulance rides, or whether this provision required additional and separate proof of the medical necessity requirements listed in § 410.40(d)(1)? See 42 C.F.R. § 410.40(d)(2) (2012). (specifically requested by the district court in Certificate of Appealability for guidance and answer omitted by the Third Circuit) : . i