Whether Mr. Turner's due process rights were violated by the district court's failure to adjudicate his Motion for Partial Disqualification prior to presiding over 2255 Proceedings, and whether his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to various procedural and substantive issues in his criminal case

No question identified. : QU ESTI ON (S) PRESENTED QUESTON NUMBER ONE; Whether Mr. Turner's due process of law rights of the Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution were violated by the district court failing to adjudicate the merits of his Motion for Partial Disqualification in the first instance prior to presiding over the 2255 Proceedings ? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a prompt Evidentiary Hearing and the Sixth Circuit's affirmance as to Ground One, claim, thus, did his ex-trial counsel provide him with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to conduct legal research and by failing to file a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss Fatally Defective Count 1, Conspiracy of the Second Superseding Indictment did this violate his Sixth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a prompt Evidentiary Hearing and the Sixth Circuit's affirmance as to Ground Two, thus, did his ex-trial counsel provide him with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the Constructive or Impermissible Amendment of the Second Superseding Indictment through Jury Instruction No. 16, did this violate his Sixth Amendment rights ? QUESTION NUMBER FOUR : Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing and the Sixth Circuits affirmance as it relates to Ground Four, thus, did his ex-trial counsel provide Turner with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the Governments Proposed Special Jury Verdict and requested a Special Jury Verdict Form in which the Jury would find the minimum and maximum amount of drugs attributed to Turner as approved by the Sixth Circuit in McReynolds, 964 F.3d 555, 563-67 (6th Cir. 2020), did this violate his Sixth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER FIVE: Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct Evidentiary Hearing and the Sixth Circuits affirmance as it relates to Ground Five as to whether Turner's ex-appellate attorney provided him with appellate ineffectiveness by the inclusion of Grounds 1, 2, and 3, from his Direct Appeal opening brief did this violate his Sixth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER SIX: Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing and the Sixth Circuit's affirmance as it relates to Ground Six as to whether Count 5, Felon in Possession of a Firearm is unconstitutional, thus, "actually innocent" as it violates his Second Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution ?