Because requisite exceptions are shown and have been met in the State and Federal
proceedings/ regardless of styling said pleading-presented claims as §2241 or §2254,
does a federal appellate court necessitate the exercise of this Court's supervisory
power when, contrary to its own and this Court's precedent decisions, the appellate
court decides that a petitioner/appellant has not "made a substantial showing of a
constitutional right", yet said claims demonstrate proofs clearly adequate with
grounds of constitutionally guaranteed rights having been violated to deserve a
ruling on their merits and the constitutional rights violations claims are both
properly within the appellate court and district courts' jurisdictions?

Whether a federal appellate court necessitates the exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory power when it decides that a petitioner/appellant has not 'made a substantial showing of a constitutional right', despite the claims demonstrating clear proof of constitutional rights violations that are properly within the appellate and district courts' jurisdictions