1. Due process requires the trial court to order a competency hearing
whenever the uncontradicted evidence raises a doubt as to the defendant's
competency. The question presented is where significant evidence of competency
is susceptible to conflicting inferences, some pointing to competency and some
pointing to incompetency, what standard of proof is required for a hearing and
what party bears that burden.

2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1203 should be interpreted in accordance with
its underlying treaty and the principles in Bond v. United States , 572 U.S. 844, 134
S. Ct. 2077 (2014) as applying to hostage taking related to international terrorism,
and, if not, whether the statute and underlying treaty violate the Treaty Power and
the Constitution's structural limits on federal authority, questions avoided in Bond .

3. Whether a recusal claim, under both 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Due
Process Clause, has a timeliness requirement and, if so, what is the appropriate
timeliness standard and standard of review for such claims; and whether recusal is
required when a judge presiding over a federal capital trial simultaneously applies
to become the United States Attorney for the same office prosecuting the case.

Where significant evidence of competency is susceptible to conflicting inferences, what standard of proof is required for a competency hearing and what party bears that burden?