Should federal appeals courts require district courts to explain their opinions and orders in sufficient detail to aid in appeals?

Questions Presented 1. Through local rule or case law, some federal appeals courts, including this Court, require lower courts to explain their opinions or orders sufficiently to aid in the appeal. The District of Columbia, First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits do things one way, and the Fifth Circuit does them differently. There is, therefore, a circuit split on this issue that should be settled. Should all federal appeals courts require district courts to explain their opinions and orders in sufficient detail to aid in appeals? 2. The Fifth Circuit erred or abused its discretion when it improperly denied Petitioner’s application for a (“COA”) and other motions related to rehearing. Should this Court remand this case with instructions to reconsider issues that should have been considered when responding to the application for the certificate of appealability COA and other motions/petitions relative to rehearing? 3. Appellate counsel filed an Ander’s brief in the direct appeal and failed to address obvious non-frivolous issues, thereby rendering ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Did the courts below err or abuse their discretion when they did not grant Petitioner an out-of-time direct appeal based upon ineffective assistance of appellate counsel? 4. The district court erred or abused its discretion when it failed to file mandatory statements of fact or conclusions of law, despite Petitioner's motion in the district court asking for them. Did the Fifth Circuit err or abuse its discretion when it did not remand | the case with instructions to the district court to provide statements of | fact or conclusions of law, as required by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52? | | | . F | | 7 So ee re 7