With clear precedents having been established by federal Appellate Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution regarding when a 4th Amendment stop is justified and this case having numerous, genuine disputes of material facts, as described in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), was Petitioner entitled to have his case heard by finders of fact, at trial, in the District Court?

In issuing a decision that, Petitioner alleges, directly overruled numerous prior panel precedents of the federal Appellate Courts, to include at least three Ninth Circuit existing law decisions (two en banc), the Doctrine of Stare Deciscis regarding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the 4th and 14th Amendments. to the U.S. Constitution, did a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit err in affirming the dismissal of Petitioners case by the District Court?

Does the three-judge mandate of the Ninth Circuit, entered in this case, have the force of law?

Whether a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit erred in affirming the dismissal of a case involving alleged violations of Supreme Court precedent and constitutional amendments