Whether a court of appeals may render judgment without addressing a new Supreme Court decision cited under Rule 28(j), and whether a defendant is entitled to habeas relief when promised judges for trial differ from those who ultimately sentence him

I. a. When a party brings to the attention of the court of appeals, via a notice filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), a new decision of this Court that bears on whether the party is entitled to relief, may the court of appeals render judg ment without addressing that new decision? b. Should this Court grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand for further consideration in light of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , 603 U.S. 369 (2024)? II. a. Is petitioner entitled to habeas corpus relief for involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelligently waiving jury where he decided to waive only after he was given representations that he would be tried and sentenced by three specific judges ––who m the court identified by name twice in open court and whose names the prosecutor typed in the written waiver document which the petitioner and the court signed –– but afterwards, petitioner was re -sentenced to death by three completely different judges? b. Under this Court’s clearly established law governing knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waivers , can petitioner secure habeas relief when the identity of his three -judge panel change d from what he was assured it would be ––without reservation, multiple times , on the record in open court and in writing ––and when he inform ed the court such information wa s necessary to his wa iver decision? III. Does a defendant have a clearly established due process right, under Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009), Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984), and Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257 (1971), for relief when promises that induced him to waive his constitutional right to a jury trial cannot be fulfilled , and is Davis entitled to habeas relief on his claim?