I. In a direct criminal appeal, is it a serious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings when a federal court of appeals refuses to consider an intervening change in the controlling law, issued while the court still had jurisdiction over the appeal, that would have resulted in a three-year reduction in a prisoner's Sentencing Guidelines range?

II. In such a case, does it represent a serious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings for the court of appeals to construe a motion to file an out-of-time rehearing petition as a motion to recall the mandate in order to deny relief to a prisoner, when in fact the mandate had not yet been issued?

Whether it is a serious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings when a federal court of appeals refuses to consider an intervening change in the controlling law that would have resulted in a three-year reduction in a prisoner's Sentencing Guidelines range