however, the district court issued a “certificate of appealability ... with respect to Petitioner’s claim that his retrial on criminal charges after his first conviction was reversed violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Smith v. Warden, S. Ohio Corr. Facility, No. 1:04cv579, 2010 WL 2667418, at *3 (S.D.Ohio July 2, 2010). STANDARD OF REVIEW It is a familiar rule that this Court liberally construes pro se filings such as Petitioner’s. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir.2011). Despite the fact that Petitioner filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, “a petitioner cannot forfeit or waive the standards that apply to habeas petitions.” Phillips v. Court of Common Pleas, 668 F.3d 804, 809 n. 1 (6th Cir.2012); see also Fisher v. Rose, 757 F.2d 789, 792 n. 2 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because his petition was filed
holding that the rule applies for purposes of habeas corpus under section 2254 holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed holding that petition relating to calculation of credit for time served during federal detention was properly brought under  2241 holding that because petitioners habeas petition was converted to a petition for review under the real id act whether jordon was in custody under  2241  is a jurisdictional inquiry no longer relevant to our analysis here recognizing our ability to construe a pretrial habeas petition filed under  2254 as being brought under  2241