Whether in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over the United States Courts, this Court should correct the correctable injustice that occurred when the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion affirmed Watson's motion to suppress drugs and a firearm and ammunition, while completely ignoring, overlooking, failing to consider, or even to mention the documented fact that a deputy changed his testimony under oath at the suppression hearing in federal court nine days after giving a sworn deposition in related Florida state court proceedings, when he gave different and conflicting testimony as to a material matter regarding the initial stop and frisk?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in affirming the denial of the motion to suppress despite a deputy's conflicting testimony under oath