1-) IN A DEPARTURE FROM THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE COMPULSORY PROCESS PROTECTION OF THE SIX AMENDMENT, 'DID THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR THE ELEVEN CIRCUIT CREATE AN IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH PRECEDENTIAL DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS BY DENYING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IN THE APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT ORDER OF DENIAL MOVANT MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C §2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT HER SENTENCE CLAIMING.UNFAIR TRIAL DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, BIAS DISTRICT COURT, -BAD .7FAITH AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT?OF

2-) DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OTHER CIRCUITS COURT ON THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS APPLIED THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD IN THE MONEY LAUNDERING CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN THIS CASE THAT IT WAS OBTAINED WITH UNCONSTITUTIONAL INDICTMENT AND THE FSENTENCE VIOLATED THE EIGHT AMENDMENT'S EXCESSIVE FINE CLAUSE?.WITH

Whether the Court of Appeals created an irreconcilable conflict with precedential decisions by denying a certificate of appealability on a motion to vacate sentence claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, bias, and prosecutorial misconduct