Should a writ of mandamus issue directing the Sixth Circuit to fulfill its obligation to fully and fairly decide the merits of the timely filed petition for panel rehearing (and its supplement)?

Petitioner Omar Rashad Pouncy filed a timely petition for panel rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit after a panel erroneously reversed® for the second time® the habeas grant awarded to him by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Petitioner asserted that rehearing was necessary because the Sixth Circuit® decision: (1) is plagued with a variety of serious legal (and ostensible factual) errors; (2) crashes with (and completely disregards, like literally fails to acknowledge the existence of) controlling Supreme Court precedents; (3) creates multiple conflicts with the weight of authority from other Circuits; and (4) arouses various exceptionally important questions. The panel appreciated the merits to some of Petitioner® contentions, as evidenced by the panel® decision to not only issue an amended opinion correcting some of the factual errors contained in the original opinion, but the panel also directed Petitioner to file a memorandum of law in support of the original petition® which he did. But without ever fulfilling its obligation to decide the merits of the petition for panel rehearing as this Court requires panels to do, the panel brought the litigation in the Sixth Circuit to a conclusion by issuing a mandate. This has left the petition for panel rehearing (and its supplement) undecided. Currently there is no judgment for Petitioner to challenge in this Court via a petition for a writ of certiorari. This petition presents the following question: 1. Should a writ of mandamus issue directing the Sixth Circuit to fulfill its obligation® as observed in Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 46 n. 14 (1990)® to fully and fairly decide the merits of the timely filed petition for panel rehearing (and its supplement)? 1