The Sixth Circuit reasoning concerning Petitioners attempt to get new counsel assigned during trial is flamed, as several United States Supreme Court holdings correctly captures the requirements of Strickland v Washington.1.

The Sixth Circuit reasoning as it relates to Petitioners second claim that a reasonable jurists would not disagree with District Courts decision to not give an instruction on a lesser included offense is flawed.2,

The Sixth Circuit argument that Petitioners ineffective - assistance - of - appellate - counsel claim is not worth review is flawed. Here Petitioner laid out foundation as to why this claim should be granted .3.

Did lower Courts make erroneous rulings on petitioners amended claims on petitioners initial motion for relief from judgment (6.500), without fully mastering the record and thus denying petitioner access to the courts by State never providing a Opinion and Order in Rule 5 material. Completely going against U.S. 5upreme Court precedent. Set forth in AMADEO v ZANT.4.

Whether the Sixth Circuit's reasoning concerning the petitioner's attempt to get new counsel assigned during trial is flawed