1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit should have granted COA as to whether Petitioner's Fla. Stat. § 893.13 drug offense qualifies within the ACCA's definition of a "serious drug offense" where mens rea is not even an implied element of the definition of a "serious drug offense" in § 924(e) or § 4B1.2(b), according to their precedential opinion in United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (llth Cir. 2014)?

2. Whether, in light of Rehaif, an indictment that only charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)-but did not either cite or track the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) by alleging that the defendant knew of his prohibited felon status at the time of his firearm possession - failed to charge an "offense against the United States," so as to confer federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231?

3. Whether the Supreme Court should grant the writ of certiorari to address the practice of "Summary Remand to Ponder a Point Raised Neither Here nor Below" (SRPPRNHB)?

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit should have granted COA as to whether Petitioner's Fla. Stat. § 893.13 drug offense qualifies within the ACCA's definition of a 'serious drug offense' where mens rea is not even an implied element