May a court of appeals refuse to conduct any appellate review of attorney fees awarded under state law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case falls within Sup. Ct. R. 10(a) which allows the Supreme Court to exercise its supervisory power when a court of appeals has departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings. 1. May a court of appeals proclaim that it applies an “abuse of discretion” and “de novo” standard of review to lower court awards of attorney fees under state law, then refuse to conduct any appellate review whatsoever of any kind or description, without offering a single word of independent analysis, without applying any standards, without discussing any precedents applied below, and without explaining its silence when confronted twice on motions for rehearing? 2. Under the Erie doctrine, may a court of appeals refuse to exercise any review over a district court decision using federal precedents on federal law to justify attorney fees under substantive state law? 3. Is the complete and total failure to exercise any standard of review, coupled with the failure to ensure compliance with the Erie doctrine, a “departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings.”