1. In United States v. Lovasco, this Court delegated to the lower courts the responsibility to "apply[] the settled principles of due process" to preindictment delay. Here, Petitioner was prosecuted in federal court for offenses that had been adjudicated by state courts 13 years earlier and after exculpatory witness statements had been destroyed. The Ninth Circuit nonetheless held that the delay did not violate due process. Should this Court address the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Lovasco?

2. In United States v. Richardson, the Third Circuit held that an amended statute of limitations does not apply retroactively in the absence of express congressional intent that it should. Although Richardson has never been overruled, its viability after this Court's decision in Landgraf v. Usi Film Prods. has been questioned. Should this Court grant the writ to decide whether a statute of limitations should be applied retroactively in the absence of congressional intent?

Should the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Lovasco be addressed?