Whether Appellant counsel Anders brief was inadequate were evidence exist that Appellant Constitutional rights were violated, double jeopardy rightsI. which the plea agreement and the indictment still contain duplicative charged? See Exhibit A, B, C, D, E

Whether the Appellate court erred in failing to address and make factual finding on all Appellants evidence and arguments?

Idlether the interest of justice requires invalidate of the appellativeII. waivers because of violations of double jeopardy and plain errors? See Exhibit A, B, C, D

Whether Appellant's guilty plea and appellate waivers are invalid due IV. to double jeopardy violations remaining in the plea and indictment alone with counsel's ineffective assistance in the prior and present proceed ings? See Exhibit A, B, C, D

Whether the Sixth Circuit panel decision is conflicting with the Supreme Court and the prior three panel orders ruling in Appellant favor due to double jeopardy violations? See Exhibit A, B, C, DV.

Whether Mr. Flacks case should be vacated due to the plain error, con stitutional violations, double jeopardy, compounded with the intervening changes in the laws Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. (S.Ct. 6/7/2022)?VI. See Exhibits A, B, C, D, E

Whether Appellant counsel's Anders brief was inadequate where evidence exists that Appellant's Constitutional rights were violated, including double jeopardy rights, which the plea agreement and the indictment still contain duplicative charges?