Whether the Fifth Circuit's resolution of counsel substitution replicates the Christeson error and fails to address a potential conflict of interest in appointed counsel's representation,' conflict-of-interest, ineffective-assistance, atkins-claim, statute-of-limitation, federal-review, appointed-counsel
24-5670"

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Christeson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373 (2015), held that a conflict of interest could satisfy the “interests of justice” standard set forth in Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (2012), and thus require substitution of conflict-free counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e). In Christeson, the district court failed to address the factors set forth in Clair because it did not acknowledge the asserted conflict of interest but addressed only the list of additional considerations courts may account for. In this case, the district court and court of appeals similarly did not address the asserted conflict of interest created by appointed counsel’s failure to file a potentially meritorious Atkins claim within AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitation. Rather, they focused on other and futility. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fifth Circuit’s resolution of White’s request for substitution of counsel replicates the error identified and corrected by this Court in Christeson. 2. Whether counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 was conflicted between serving his own professional interests and acting in the best interest of his client. ii