1) Did the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals go against Supreme Court precedent (Peugh v. U.S., 569 US 530; Class v. U.S., 2018 LEXIS 1378; Calderon v. Thompson, 523 US 538; and Rosales-Mireles v. U.S., 2018 BL 214344), its own stare decisis (U.S. v. BeurayasNunez, 91 F.3d 826, 830 (6th Cir. 1996)), and in the process create a circuit split by failing to recall its mandate, vacate the underlying sentence, and remand the case in question to a new District Court judge given:

The District Court judge in the underlying case was directed by the 6th Circuit's Special Investigative Committee (SIC) on February 22, 2016 to divest himself of all current cases pending, and that same judge held four hearings and the Petitioner's Sentencing proceedings subsequent to that date, and:

Appellate Counsel admitted to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that they-and District Counsel, separate from Appellate Counsel, were ineffective for failing to recognize that the same District judge gave the Petitioner an illegal sentence in violation of the ex post facto Clause of the US Constitution.

Did the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals go against Supreme Court precedent, its own stare decisis, and create a circuit split by failing to recall its mandate, vacate the underlying sentence, and remand the case to a new District Court judge