Whether the Fifth Circuit proceedings in petitioner's case so departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for this Court's reversal of the Fifth Circuit's judgment and a remand with instructions to conduct further proceedings in which (1) the Fifth Circuit should apply the plain-error standard to the two new issues raised on petitioner's second appeal; and (2) petitioner should be represented by appointed counsel

QUESTION PRESENTED After the district court resentenced petitioner following the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of one of his three convictions on his first appeal, petitioner appealed again, raising two new issues challenging his remaining two convictions. The United States filed a motion for summary affirmance, contending that the Fifth Circuit was “preclude[d]” from granting relief on petitioner’s new issues because they were “waived” by not having been raised on petitioner’s first appeal. The Fifth Circuit granted that motion and refused to address the merits of the two new issues. The Fifth Circuit did not apply the plain-error standard to those two issues, even though well-established Fifth Circuit precedent required the court to do so. E.g., Medical Center Pharmacy v. Holder, 634 F.3d 830, 836 (5th Cir. 2011). Both before and after the Fifth Circuit granted the United States’ motion for summary affirmance, petitioner asked the Fifth Circuit to appoint him replacement counsel under the Criminal Justice Act because petitioner’s attorney had _ stopped communicating with him, including not mailing petitioner copies of any documents filed in the case. In addition, petitioner’s attorney in the Fifth Circuit failed either to respond to the United States’ motion for summary affirmance or to move for rehearing after the court did not apply the plain-error standard. Petitioner, who learned of the Fifth Circuit’s decision only after the time in which to file a timely petition for rehearing had passed, filed a pro se motion to allow him to file an out-of-time petition, coupled with another request for appointed counsel. The Fifth ii Circuit summarily denied his motion and request for appointed counsel. In view of the Fifth Circuit’s rulings below, including its decision affirming petitioner’s convictions without applying the plain-error standard, the question presented is: Whether the Fifth Circuit proceedings in petitioner’s case “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings,” Sup. Ct. R. 10(a), as to call for this Court’s reversal of the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and a remand with instructions to conduct further proceedings in which (1) the Fifth Circuit should apply the plain-error standard to the two new issues raised on petitioner’s second appeal; and (2) petitioner should be represented by appointed counsel.