On third direct appeal, did the fractionally different appellate Panel plainly err by failing to force district court compliance (mandate rule) with the original (majority) panels published, now widely cited (including by this court) opinion and order; violating both laws of the case and circuit by imposing a longer term of imprisonment and harsh supervised release than ordered in the first direct appeal, affecting my substantial due process rights?I

Does the (vehemently) dissenting minority judges reappearance on a subsequent appellate panel, affirming a non-compliant judgment with language and views very similar to the original dissent; convey an appearance of impropriety and panel shopping?II

Do the accumulative judicially biased errors (causing me to linger in the prison system longer than decided in the first appeal) within this widely cited case require reversal, for more meaningful appellate review; to maintain integrity of the process, uniformity of decisions thus preserving public reputation and the appearance of justice?Ill

Questions Presented