Whether when, an Appellate court vacates a forfeiture order on direct appeal 'having found only partial of the District Court's trial order was valid if the finding of fact prior to vacating the 'order 'becomes "Law-Of-The-Case" upon remand. Mayer was permitted to and indeed did argue against the entire forfeiture amount at the hearing on , remand. Put another way does the act of vacating an order of forfeiture on direct appeal effectively wipe the slate clean?

Whether if prosecutorial fraud in the material representation of false facts is sufficient to overturn the "Law-Of-The-Case" Doctrine if indeed such Doctrine survives vacating a forfeiture order on direct appeal?

And therefore,

Whether it is encumbent upon the Government to clarify an issue to the Court when the Court 'mistakenly relies on a prior fraudulent misrepresentation of the Government's ' to deny a defendant subsequent relief?

Whether the finding of fact prior to vacating the forfeiture order becomes 'Law-of-the-Case' upon remand