Is a federal question raised by a claim that a state collateral review erroneously failed to find a Teague, Graham, and Grant case and Miller exception?

Does miller, Graham, and Grant or the SB 850 apply to Mr. Thomas, which in one court the Third circuit of Pennsylvania declared, that it did in fact apply to Mr. Thomas," or does it categorically bar a penalty, or "instead mandates only a certain process and or group of juveniles.

WHEREFORE, it is in question if the lower court and or the two state courts along with the Third Circuit court and the Third Circuit court of Appeals violated and or made a mistake when deciding on Mr. Thomas's case in a whole, was Mr. Thomas's right to his 6th Amendment and 8' Amendment as well his 14' Amendment violated when each court denied to re-sentence him under the same laws that was made for all juveniles even after the Third Circuit Courts rule that it was unconstitutional to sentence Mr. Thomas to what amounted to a life sentence, Pro Se Petitioner ask this court of the high land to look at the evident and re-evaluate the violations of Mr. Thomas Clams and they are as followed;

(a) On his 6th Amendment a right to counsel if the Defendant is clearly unable to help himself do to a mental condition and will rely on counsel more than a person without all the mental disability's that Mr. Thomas had, which was in all pass court documents for the courts to identify.

The 8th Amendment which is cruel and unusual punishment, for not sentencing Mr. Thomas under the SB 850 which the United States Supreme Court had ordered all states courts to do, after June 24, of 2012, as the 14th Amendment of Due Process was a violation because the court's failed to give Thomas his rights and apply the same standard and rules, laws, that has been made for all juveniles within the United States.

Whether Mr. Thomas's Sentence violated the sentencing code for juveniles or whether Mr. Thomas received a fair sentence as a juvenile without a homicide, in which his re-sentence of 40 year to life is still a Defacto Life Sentence that he hopes this high court of the land will remand back down to the lower court's to be fix's.

Thomas's ask this high court of the land, that if taken his age in to account and his mental capacity at the time of the crimes and a very low 10 and not really understanding at the time what he was doing was wrong and not understanding the consequences of his actions.

For Mr. Thomas the big question is if his 40 to life sentence was or is a tantamount to a life sentence to where he may never be free in his life time being that the court's made clear that, "No court don't have to guarantee a juvenile non-homicide a second chance in his or her life time, but this we clearly be going against the 8th Amendment of cruel and unusual punishment;

Whether a federal question is raised by a claim that a state collateral review erroneously failed to find a Teague, Graham, and Grant case and Miller exception