Whether the panel's opinion violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right by failing to accept the government's plea proposal

Questions presented DATE: 02/08/2024 07:33:05 PM QUESTIONS PRESENTED |. if the court holds a hearing to put a PLEA PROPOSAL on the record, and the Government OFFERS a 3 point deduction for acceptance of responsibility if the defendant PLEADS guilty, which allows for a significantly lower sentencing range, is that considered a PLEA OFFER? . *THIS IS A QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION FOR THE COURT If the answer to that question is YES, you must decide: Whether the panel's opinion which denied Carson's claim that his appointed counsel violated his Sixth amendment tight by failing to accept the Government's plea proposal directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's opinion in Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) because Carson provided evidence of his unequivocal desire to not proceed to trial and accept the offered plea? (1, Whether the panel was allowed to ignore violations of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Carson's constitutional rights, because they felt there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt, violates the precedents established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) and Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S. Ct. 2039, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1986)? lil. Whether the panels determination that Carson knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify violated his constitutional rights and directly conflicts with Supreme Court precedent established in Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 4952, 107 S. Ct. 2704 (1987) and Sixth Circuit precedent in Hodge v. Haeberlin, 579 F. 3d 627, 639 (6th Cir. 2009) and United States v. Webber, 208 F. 3d 545, 550-51 (6th Cir. 2000)? IV. Whether the panel violated Carson's rights by not remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing after he proved that several factual disputes exist, which directly conflicts with the Supreme Court precedent established in Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 215, 93 S. Ct. 1461 (1973) and Sixth Circuit precedent established in Valentine v. United States, 488 F. 3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2007)? V. If a petitioner loses his Direct Appeal, and another Circuit Judge issues 10 COA's regarding constitutional concerns relating to the petitioner's case, which relates back to and calls into question the reliability of the panels decision of his Direct Appeal, should the judge who wrote the opinion in the Direct Appeal, who claimed there were no constitutional concerns or errors, be allowed to sit on the panel that ultimately scrutinizes her own decision because it raises concerns of impartiality? . * THIS IS A QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION FOR THE COURT — \