I. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in denying Petitioner's appeal, resulted in a decision of an important federal question in a way that conflicts with this Court's decisions in Kinship and Jackson, where Petitioner's State-court conviction of criminal sexual conduct -first-degree was obtained in violation of the Due Process Clause, where the state prosecution failed to meet its constitutional burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense with which Petitioner was charged?

II. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in denying Petitioner' s appeal, resulted in a decision of an important federal question in a way that conflicts with this Court's decisions in Bouie and Lanier, where the state trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, in violation of the Due Process Clause, applied a novel construction of a criminal statute that depended the statutes narrow and precise language to include "self-penetration" to the statute's definition of "sexual penetration" that was unexpected and indefensible and then applied the novel construction retroactively, and in doing so, deprived Petitioner of the "fair warning" required by the Due Process Clause that, under the criminal statute, Petitioner's alleged conduct was criminalized?

Whether the government's warrantless seizure and search of a person's cell phone data violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures