The issue subsuming all other issues in this appeal is whether I.
or not, Mr. Sean Trent Barnes, while incarcerated in pre-trial cus
tody as a federal prisoner in the Eastern District of North Carolina,
should have undergone a competency examination in order to determine
if his decision to waive counsel and represent himself was —made volun
tarily, knowing, and intelligently made. A district court's failure
to conduct a comptency hearing on its own motion will always be sub
ject to plain error review. Moreover, the district court's failure to
conduct a comprehensive competency hearing or evaluation must be con
strued and viewed upon as an abuse of discretion by this Court.*

Whether the District Court erred when it accepted Mr. Barnes II.
guilty plea without determining a factual basis and ensuring that
Mr. Barnes truly understood the nature of the charges in violation of
Rule 11 and constituting plain error.

III. Whether this Court should grant certiorari in light of this Court's
opinion in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan as Mr.
Barnes was duped by retained counsel Jim Melo, Esq. into pleading
guilty with the "promise" and "guarantee" of a five year sentence pur
suant to a plea agreement to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1),(6)(1)( A), 846 (2012). The District Court increased Mr.
Barnes total offense level by six levels when incorporating findings
that were nothing more than debatable hearsay and not proven beyond a
.reasonable doubt or admiitted to by Mr. Barnes in the plea agreement.

Whether Mr. Sean Trent Barnes' decision to waive counsel and represent himself was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently