A.
IS THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION-OF-POWERS , WHICH PROHIBITS
WJUDTGIAL ENCROACHMENT ON THE EXCLUSIVE POWER OF CONGRESS
TO MAKE LAWS, VIOLATED, WHEN A COURT OF APPEALS DENIES
A MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE FOR A DECISION THAT INTERPRETED
AN ENHANCING STATUTE THAT IS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPLICITLY ABROGATED
BY A "CLARIFICATION" OF THAT ENHANCING STATUTE BY CONGRESS
AND THAT CLARIFICATION IS THE EXACT SAME INTERPRETATION OF THE
ENHANCING STATUTE PUT FORWARD BY PETITIONER ON DIRECT APPEAL
AND REJECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESULTING IN PETITIONER
HAVING TO SERVE AN ADDITIONAL FIFTEEN ADDITIONAL YEARS IN PRISON
NOT PRESCRIBED IN THE LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS?

B.
WHICH PROHIBITS :.-.M IS THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION-OF-POWERS
CONGRESSIONAL ENCROACHMENT ON JUDICIAL POWERS, VIOLATED IF THE LAWS
CODIFIED IN 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a), 2255(h), COVERING THE PROVISIONS
FOR FILING A SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONi OR THE
GENERAL SAVINGS CLAUSE, 1 U.S.C. § 109^-IS?USED TO ESTOP» ?
A COURT
FROM EXERCISING ITS INHERENT POWER TO RECALL A MANDATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE
DESCRIBED IN QUESTION A, ABOVE.

Is the principle of separation-of-powers, which prohibits judicial encroachment on the exclusive power of Congress to make laws, violated, when a court of appeals denies a motion to recall the mandate for a decision that: interpreted an enhancing statute that is subsequently explicitly abrogated by a 'clarification' of that enhancing statute by Congress and that clarification is the exact same interpretation of the enhancing statute put forward by petitioner on direct appeal and rejected by the court of appeals, resulting in petitioner having to serve an additional fifteen additional years in prison not prescribed in the law passed by Congress?