Did the Eleventh Circuit court of Appeals error in denying the Petitioner's SubjctMatter Jurisdiction claim, where the charging documents statute [26 U.S.C.S. §845(e)] did not properly state an offense as this court and The tJnitedSonress defined, as The Petitioner's weapon(s) were outside of the penal statutes of regulation andSubject -Matter, as the Petitioners weapon(s) fully complied with all federal & state registration requirements, as well as this courts decision(s) in Staples & Freed (refferenced above) as (Pistol(s) nor Revolver(s) having rifled bore(s) can not be classified as a "Firearm" under The National Firearms Act's definitions [26uscs §5845(a),(_& 26 USCS §5845(e)] given the statutes' clear and ELaLin language?

Did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals error in denying the Petitioner's Subject-Matter Jurisdiction claim