(1) - Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) provides for Criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate Commerce, absent proof that they knew of their felonious status, or of the firearm's movement in interstate Commerce.

(2) - Whether denial of collateral habeas Corpus relief review is inconsistent with the doctrinal underpinning like those held in Bailey pursuant to Stenberg Compared to Scalia's dissent in Eleventh Circuit.

(3) - Whether the Supreme Court's opinion in Behaif determined that a new rule of statutory law was retroactively applicable under Teague v. Lane's Conclusion establishing the retroactivity of new substantive rules.

(4) - Whether Behaif is retroactive to cases already closed in the lower Courts from further habeas review prior to its decision (retroactive) for Collateral Constitutional or

(5) - Whether Behaif's "stakes" (or priors) element created a retroactive Judgment times right to a jury trial for closed cases; or should Almendarez-Torres v. United States 533 U.S. being rehurd, resolve the inconsistent questioning about the U.S. Creates priors before a trial jury concerning the instant Conviction and not a defendant's seeing.

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) requires proof of a defendant's knowledge of their felon status or the firearm's interstate commerce connection