1. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel repeatedly refused to address/clarify Jurisdiction issues, ultimately dismissing the referenced appeal when they clearly lacked the legal authority to issue such an order;

2. Considering the complexity (and totality) of legal issues, whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by denying (without valid cause) repeated requests to assist the Petitioner with the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

3. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address and re-establish the clearly evidenced imbalance of hardships;

4. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address the evidenced (and unopposed) Fraud on the Court (and other Fraud) claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), and additionally under 60(b) (2), (4) and (6);

5. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address evidenced (and unopposed) claims of Judicial Fraud on the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial Code of Conduct and Judicial Oath;

6. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address (or even acknowledge): (1) the Appellant's Intellectual Property (IP) Rights; (2) Evidenced Economic Espionage claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1831; and (3) matters believed to impact National Security;

7. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to recuse under 28 U.S.C. §455(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 144, after the Petitioner evidenced identical issues which led to the recusal of the initial Circuit Panel;

8. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by continuing to issue orders after losing jurisdiction; each constituting acts of Treason under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

9. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law;

10. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

11. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

12. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

13. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

14. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

15. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing a trial by jury, including requests for a grand jury;

16. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by refusing to address Petitioner's requests for clarification hearings, with the presence of an independent court reporter;

17. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by failing to address evidenced argument(s) as fact, refusing discovery and prematurely moving for dismissal;

18. Whether the replacement Circuit Panel erred by f

Whether the replacement Circuit Panel repeatedly refused to address/clarify Jurisdiction issues, ultimately denying Petitioner's efforts to resolve a list of extraordinary, unresolved issues