Petitioner Paula Jones hereby adopts the Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
filed by Dr. Henry Evans and Dr. Shelton Barnes and the Questions Presented therein, to
wit:

Questions Presented by Dr. Evans

Are the Medicare rules, regulations, and policies controlling " in a criminal 1.)
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1347; i.e. is evidence of compliance or non-compliance
with the rules, regulations and policies always relevant to a determination of fraud?

If the Medicare rules, regulations, and polices are not "controlling, " but are 2.)
"terms of art," as the Fifth Circuit opined, must these rules, regulations, and policies
nevertheless guide the "reliable principles and methods " of any witness proffered as an
expert in eligibility for Medicare benefits?

Questions Presented by Dr. Barnes

Does the Panel Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 3.)
Circuit, rendered October 28, 2020 (979 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2020), WL 6304699,
rehearing denied January 4, 2021 (hereinafter Panel Decision), conflict with its own
authority, holding and reversal in U.S. v. Ganja, 880 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2018), which is
not substantially distinguishable from the present case, and with the same lack of criminal
intent and sufficiency of evidence?

Does the Panel Decision conflict with the holding and reversal in the co-defendant 4.)
and alleged co-conspirator appeal in United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2021),
WL 716628, No. 18-31078, rendered February 24, 2021, by a different Panel of the Fifth
Circuit?

Does the Panel Decision conflict with U.S. v. Nora, supra, and U.S. v. Ganji, 5.)
supra, both decisions from the Fifth Circuit?

Does the Panel Decision create a lack of uniformity with U.S. v. Nora, supra, and 6.)
U.S. v. Ganji, supra, and other cases, particularly regarding sufficiency of evidence for
the knowledge and intent requisite to sustain a conviction?

Did the improper comments and conduct by the government prosecutor, during V)
the government 's rebuttal closing argument, as repeatedly found by the District Court and
Fifth Circuit Panel, constitute a violation of Petitioner 's rights to due process of law and a
fair trial; and, unconstitutionally and substantially impeach the integrity of the
proceedings, at that key and crucial time period, especially without the ability of the
victim, Petitioner, to defend herself from it?

Did the purported expert, Dr. Brobson Lutz 's unqualified, confusing, misleading 8.)
and uneducated testimony as an expert, particularly in the area of homebound status,
unconstitutionally and unreasonably confuse the jury and deprive Petitioners of due
process of law and a fair trial?

Questions Presented