QUESTON NUMBER ONE;
Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the
district court's failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing regarding the
fact his Guilty Plea and Acceptance of the Government's Plea
Agreement was the product of Attorney Haas and Attorney Tierney
ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution ?

QUESTION NUMBER TWO:
Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the
district court's failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing regarding the
fact his Guilty Plea was tainted by Conflict of Interest as to his former
attorneys Mr. Haas and Mr. Tierney, thus, should his convictions be
VACATED as his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution were
violated ?

QUESTION NUMBER THREE:
Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming
the district court's failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing, thus,
did his ex-lawyer provide him with ineffective assistance of counsel
by failing to file a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss Fatally Defective Counts
Two-Eight as they are duplicitous in violation of his Fifth and Sixth
Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Did Phillip Watkins' ex
lawyer violate his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution ?

QUESTION NUMBER FOUR:
Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the
district court's decision to Summarily Dismissing Ground Four that
Phillip Watkins stands "actually innocent" of his statutory enhancement
for "serious bodily injury" as charged within Count One, Conspiracy and
the Section 2D1.1 (a) (2) Guidelines Adjustment, thus, did that
constitute a clear miscarriage of justice to justify VACATING his
conviction ?

QUESTION NUMBER FIVE:
Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming
the district court's holding that Ground Five was "procedurally
defaulted" even though Watkins raised a claim of appellate
ineffectiveness to establish "cause," thus, as a "pre-trial detainee" he
was subjected to punishment in violation of his Fifth Amendment Rights
and his Sixth Amendment Rights were violated inference with phone
privileges with access to counsel does this merit GRANTING a C.O.A. ?

QUESTION NUMBER SIX:
Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming
the district court's denial to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing to
Petitioner's sentencing phase ineffective assistance of counsel claim
where his ex-lawyer failed to object to the PSR and at sentencing, thus,
waiving any challenge to Section 2D1.1 (a) (2) Enhancement; the Denial
of Acceptance of Responsibility; Section 2D1.1 (b) (12); Section 2D1.1
(b) (15) Enhancement; Section 3B1.1 Enhancement; and failing to
request a "downward variance" due to his harsh pre-trial detention, did
this violate his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution ?

QUESTION NUMBER SEVEN:
Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming
the district court's denial of failing to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing

Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by affirming the district court's failure to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing regarding the fact his Guilty Plea and Acceptance of the Government's Plea Agreement was the product of Attorney Haas and Attorney Tierney ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?