QUESTION ONE
Whether in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over the United States
Courts, this Court should correct the correctable injustice and violation of
essential requirements of law that occurred when the Eleventh Circuit (a) affirmed
lifetime supervised release for this first-time, non-violent, former-lawyer offender convicted of receiving and watching child pornography, but who did not
share, distribute, or produce any videos or images, and who did not touch any
child; (b) whether lifetime supervised release should be reserved for those who
commit more heinous and more serious child-sex offenses and those who are
likely to reoffend; and (c) whether the Eleventh Circuit opinion conflicts with decisions
of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals,
all of which have issued decisions taking a measured and reasonable approach to
imposing supervised release following a child pornography conviction, requiring
this Court to resolve the conflict between the Eleventh and the other circuits?

QUESTION TWO
Whether in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over the United States
Courts, this Court should correct the correctable injustice, and violation of
essential requirements of law that occurred when the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
special condition of supervised release providing for a lifetime ban on computer
and Internet access in the real world in which almost everyone depends upon the
Internet for almost everything just about every day, and likely will be even more
computer and Internet-dependent in the next few years when Mr. Aring is released
from BOP custody?

Whether lifetime supervised release is appropriate for a first-time, non-violent offender convicted of receiving and watching child pornography