DID THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (CA7 ) VIOLATE CIRCUIT OPERATING RULE 6(b) WHEN FAILING TO REASSIGN THE "SUCCESSIVE MOTION APPEAL" PANEL ("C" - below) UNDElR 18-1617 TO THE "ORIGINAL MOTION APPEAL" UNDER 14-2711 ("B"- below) AND, FAILURE TO ASSIGN THE "ORIGINAL MOTION APPEAL" ("B"-below) UNDER 14-2711 TO THE "ORIGINAL DIRECT APPEAL" PANEL UNDER 12-2771?1.

WAS THE "ORIGINAL DIRECT APPEAL" ("A"- below) UNDER 12-2771 DEPRIVED OF THE [PIECES] OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE BONAFIDE CRIMINAL RULE 33(b)(1)' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (DOC. 172), FILED AT A "CRITICAL STAGE" OF THE "CRIMINAL" PROCEEDINGS "WHILE THE DIRECT APPEAL REMAINED PENDING" AND GOVERNED UNDER THE CONTROLLING PROVISIONS OF "CRIMINAL RULE 37", ONLY TO FACE THE IN TERROREM ULTIMATUM OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S INVOKED "JUDGE-MADE RULE" RECHARACTERIZATION ORDER (DOC. 196)?2.

CAN A BONAFIDE CRIMINAL RULE 33(b)(1) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WITH NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE BE RECHARACTERIZED AS THAT OF A "COLLATERAL" §2255 "WHILE THE DIRECT APPEAL REMAINED PENDING"?3.

DID THE "GENERAL REMAN D" ORDER BY THE "ORIGINAL MOTION APPEAL" ("B"- below) PANEL UNDER 14-2711 "LIMIT" THE CLAIMS PETITIONER COULD RAISE IN THE REMANDED RULE 33 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL?4.

DID THE "SUCCESSIVE MOTION APPEAL" ("B"- below) PANEL UNDER 18-1617 ARBITRARILY GRANT REASSIGNED APPOINTED APPELLATE COUNSEL'S "ANDERS BRIEF" WITHOUT ADDRESSING PETITIONER'S "PRO SE" CLAIM THAT SAID COUNSEL STRAINED UNDER CONFLICT THROUGH DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED POSITIONS?5.

Did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals violate Circuit Operating Rule 6(b) when failing to reassign panels?