A. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
completely flout this Court's precedent as set forth in Buck v.
Davis . 580 U.S. 100 (2017), which specifically addressed a prior,
similar procedural error by the same court in Buck v. Stephens . 623
Fed.Appx. 668'(5th Cir. 2015) (reversed and remanded by Buck v. Davis .
Supra), where Petitioner Plunkett clearly demonstrated to the district
court and to the Fifth Circuit that the resolution of Plunkett's c.-
claims was, at the very least, debatable, and at worst completely
wrong resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice?

B. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
should this Court remand the appeal back to the Fifth Circuit with
directions to assign the appeal toja different panel or should this
Court exercise its discretion to take up Plunkett's appeal directly
due to Circuit Split on the merits issues, the Fifth Circuit's denial
of rehearing despite full and thoughtful briefing on the issues, and
the political implications of this case?

C. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, :<
and this Court takes up Plunkett's appeal directly, did Plunkett de
monstrate the threshold showing as articulated by this Court for is
suance of a Certificate of Appealability where Plunkett stated multi
ple, valid claims of the denial of Constitutional rights and where
Plunkett also convincingly demonstrated that jurists of reason would
find it debatable, at the very least, whether the district court was
correct in its ruling on the merits where Plunkett submitted uncontro
verted testimony and documentary evidence that his plea, sentencing,
and appellate counsel were all ineffective in violation of the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution?

D. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
err in its summary affirmance, despite thorough and thoughtful brie
fing on the issues in both the district court and the Circuit court,
of the district court's denial of Plunkett's 28 U.S.C. $$144 & 455
Motions to Disqualify/Recuse the district court where Plunkett com
plied with all statutory requirements of §144, there are open ques-^
tions in the Fifth Circuit(conflicting intra-Circuit law as to §144
procedure), and the district court failed, in the first instance, to
examine its own mind and biases and where the district court's deter
mination on this issue is in violation of this Court's precedent as
set forth in Liteky

E. Is the test used by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, as set forth in United States v. Cervantes , 132
F.3d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir. 1998), to determine whether a "promise"
has been made to a criminal defendant by his or her counsel, uncon
stitutional on equal protection grounds where an incarcerated cri
minal defendant could virtually never clear the bar of the third
prong of the test simply by virtue of his or her incarceration cau
sing an untenable disparity between the criminal

Did the Fifth Circuit flout SCOTUS precedent in Buck v. Davis?