Whether Appellant counsel's Anders brief was inadequate where evidence exists that Appellant's Constitutional rights were violated, including double jeopardy rights, which the plea agreement and the indictment still contain duplicative charges?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , I. Whether Appellant counsel Anders brief was inadequate were evidence exist that Appellant Constitutional rights were violated, double jeopardy rights, which the plea agreement and the indictment still contain duplicative charges? See Exhibit A, B, C, D, E ‘ II. Whether the Appellate court erred in failing to address and make factual finding on all Appellants evidence and arguments? III. Whether the interest of justice requires invalidate of the appeilate waivers because of violations of double jeopardy and piain errors? See Exhibit A, B, C, D IV. Whether Appellant's guilty plea and appellate waivers are invalid due to double jeopardy violations remaining in the plea and indictment alone with counsel's ineffective assistance in the prior and present proceedings? See Exhibit A, B, C, D , Vv. Whether the Sixth Circuit panel décision is conflicting with the Supreme Court and the prior three panel orders ruling in Appellant favor due to double jeopardy violations? See-Exhibit A, B, C, D : , VI. Whether Mr. Flacks case should be vacated due to the plain error, constitutional violations, double jeopardy, compounded with the intervening changes in the laws Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. (S.Ct. 6/7/2022)? See Exhibits A, B, C, D, E :