Consistent with this Court's decision in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. at 60-61 (1963). When the disclosure of the name of confidential informant, is "relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way." May Roviaro, be applied retroactively to set-aside the conviction in this case, because there is evidence in the record, showing that an ["alleged criminal confidential informant"], had "helped set up an ["entrapment controlled buy"]?

Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to get an arrest warrant first, prior to officers placing a person under surveillance, in order to set-up defendant for ["entrapment" controlled buy"] purchase, based upon alleged criminal confidential informer's information?, which..led to illegal home search.

Did the law enforcement officers needed separate ludicial authority to enter the home of Mr. Ardd, and started to search his home - without - a - search warrant?

Consistent with this Court's decision in Strickland v•. Washington, 466:U.S. at 691 (2004); and Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003). Is it a Sixth Amendment violation, when appellate attorney failure to present facts, and ignored significant and obvious issues on direct appeal? Does constitutional violation occur.% when defendant's appellate attorney refused to file petition for writ of certiorari on behalf of defendant, after the Sixth Circuit having affirmed defendant's conviction and sentencing?

Is the--Sixth Circuit's decision in this instant case,-in conflict with the Supreme Court of the United States' decision( "s") in Brady, Franks, and Roviaro?

Question not identified