Did the Sixth Circuit err when its opinion failed to analyze Petitioner's issues according to the Legislative directive that Public Act 283 is retroactive?

II. Did the Sixth Circuit err when it opined that "Thus the marijuana in the room that was accessible to him and Petitioner could be attributable to he would not be entitled to immunity for the possession of it because the storage of the marijuana did not comply with the MMMA"?

III. Did the Sixth Circuit err when it opined that Petitioner was not entitled to immunity under (4) above because a qualified patient must be limited to the use or administration of the marijuana, which Michigan Supreme Court determined is correct involving only the ingestion of marijuana, McQueen, 493 Mich at 158. While the sale of medical marijuana is included within the definition of "medical use" of marijuana, McQueen, 493 Mich at 152, the transfer, delivery, and acquisition of marijuana are three activities that are part of the "medical use" of marijuana that the drafters of the MMMA chose not to include as protected activities within §4(1)." Id. at 158?

IV. Did the Sixth Circuit err and abuse its discretion and deny Petitioner his Due Process right to a fair trial when it declined to determine the amount of marijuana in possession of Petitioner for purpose of Section 4 and 8 immunity affirmative defense in Counts 4, 5, 6 and 8?

V. Did the Sixth Circuit err when it opined that Petitioner also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a blanket prohibition against the admission of MMMA evidence?

VI. Did the Sixth Circuit err when it opined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to allow the jury to determine whether maintaining a drug house was the substantial purpose of the property at the two locations in Counts 4 and 5 as the Michigan Supreme Court required in People v. Thompson, 477 Mich 167, 730 NW2d 708 (2007) and trial counsel was ineffective for failure to know the law and request the additional clarifying jury instructions?

VII. Was the evidence insufficient in Counts 3 and 7 that Petitioner aided and abetted Jayson Hunt and Mike Holloway to illegally distribute marijuana?

Did the Sixth Circuit err when its opinion failed to analyze Petitioner's issues according to the legislative directive that Public Act 283 is retroactive?