Whether the lower court's decision was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1). WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION WAS CONTARY TO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT? SEE CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) 2018 US LEXIS 3844; 201 L. Ed.2d 507. 2). SHOULD CARPENTER v. U.S, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) BE GIVEN . FULL, RETROACTIVITY STATUS OF LAW IN MICHIGAN PURSUANT TO . MCR 6.502 (G)(2)? ; 3). WAS MR. BUTLER DENIED DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE INTRODUCTION AT TRIAL OF UNAUTHENIGATED.\ HISTORICAL CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) OBTAINED WITHOUT A VALID PROBABLE CAUSE WARRANT TO AT&T IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT; ALTERNATIVELY, TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT AND INVESTIGATE THE UNAUTHENTICATED (CSLI) DOCUMENTS, DENYING MR. BUTLER HIS ; pS TATE AND FEBERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER U.S. CONST. IV, VI, XIV; CONST. 1963, Art 1 §§ 11, 15, 17, 20.