Whether the government's warrantless seizure and search of a person's cell phone data violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

No question identified. : ; I. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for. the Sixth Circuit, in | > denying Petitioner's appeal, resulted in a decision ef an important federal question in a, way that conflicts with this Court's decisions in Winship and Jackson, where Petitioner's State-court conviction of criminal sexual conduct -first-degree was obtained in violation of the Due Process Clause, where the state prosecution failed to meet its constitutional burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense with which Petitioner was charged? . TI. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in ; denying. Petitiener's appeal, resulted in a decision of an important federal question in a way that conflicts with this Court's decisions in Boule and Lanier, where the state trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, in violation of the Due Process Clause, applied a nevel construction of a criminal statute that expanded the statutes narrow and precise language to include "self-penetration" to . _ the statute's definition of “sexual penetration thac was unexpected and : indefensible and then applied the novel construction retroactively, and in doing so, deprived Petitioner of the "fair warning" required by the Due Process Clause ; -’ \ that, under the criminal statute, Petitioner's alleged conduct was criminalized? -II: