Whether the Fourth Circuit's decision conflicts with prior decisions of this Court and another United States Court of Appeals, including its own, on the same important matter therefore calling for a review by this Court on a Writ of Certiorari

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ° ° (1) In the case below, the Fourth Circuit found, without any discussion, that the record of the District Court was carefully reviewed and identified no reversible error in relation to Petitioner's claims that (1) the District Court erred when it denied Petitioner's motion to suppress evidence recovered during a search of a residence located in Baltimore City, Maryland due to the warrant lacking probable cause; (2) that the District Court erred when it determined there was no Franks violation as “governed by Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978); (3) that the District Court erred when it neglected to find that the government violated Discovery Rule 16 and Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 3500 (Jencks material) in relation to a witness testimony; (4) that the District Court erred and further abused its discretion when it limited the Petitioner's crass-examination of a DNA expert; -and (5) that, under the piain error doctrine, the issuing judge acted as a" Rubber Stamp" by granting a search warrant that : lacked any indicia of probable cause, and that exceeded both the affiant's and the issuing judge's jurisdiction. The first question is: ‘Whether the Fourth Circuit's decision conflicts with prior decisions of this Court and another United States Court of Appeals, including its own, on the same important matter therefore calling for a review by this Court on a Writ of Certiorari; The second question is: Whether the Fourth Circuit overlooked and therefore failed to conduct a complete review under the De Novo standard of review thereby necessitating a review by this Court on a Writ of Certiorari; and The third questions is: : ; Whether the Fourth Circuit's review of the Petitioner's issues on direct appeal has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power.