Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court's failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing regarding the fact his Guilty Plea and Acceptance of the Government's Plea Agreement was the product of Attorney Haas and Attorney Tierney ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QUESTON NUMBER ONE: Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing regarding the fact his Guilty Plea and Acceptance of the Government’s Plea Agreement was the product of Attorney Haas and Attorney Tierney ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing regarding the fact his Guilty Plea was tainted by Conflict of Interest as to his former attorneys Mr. Haas and Mr. Tierney, thus, should his convictions be VACATED as his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution were violated ? QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing, thus, did his ex-lawyer provide him with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss Fatally Defective Counts Two-Eight as they are duplicitous in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Did Phillip Watkins’ ex * lawyer violate his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER FOUR: Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s decision to Summarily Dismissing Ground Four that Phillip Watkins stands “actually innocent” of his statutory enhancement for “serious bodily injury” as charged within Count One, Conspiracy and the Section 2D1.1 (a) (2) Guidelines Adjustment, thus, did that constitute a clear miscarriage of justice to justify VACATING his conviction ? QUESTION NUMBER FIVE: Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s holding that Ground Five was “procedurally defaulted” even though Watkins raised a claim of appellate ineffectiveness to establish “cause,” thus, as a “pre-trial detainee” he was subjected to punishment in violation of his Fifth Amendment Rights and his Sixth Amendment Rights were violated inference with phone privileges with access to counsel does this merit GRANTING a C.O.A. ? QUESTION NUMBER SIX: Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s denial to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing to Petitioner’s sentencing phase ineffective assistance of counsel claim where his ex-lawyer failed to object to the PSR and at sentencing, thus, * waiving any challenge to Section 2D1.1 (a) (2) Enhancement; the Denial of Acceptance of Responsibility; Section 2D1.1 (b) (12); Section 2D1.1 (b) (15) Enhancement; Section 3B1.1 Enhancement; and failing to request a “downward variance” due to his harsh pre-trial detention, did this violate his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER SEVEN: Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s denial of failing to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing regarding Petitioner’s appellate ineffective assistance of counsel claim and did this violate his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER EIGHT: Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court’s denial of Mr. Watkins’ Motion to Amend, thus, the U.S. Supreme Court should VACATE and REMAND as leave should be freely given constitute with Civil Procedure 15 (a) (2), and his due process of law rights ?