1. Pursuant to SCOTUS Rule 13.3, did the lower court appropriately entertain an untimely petition for rehearing thus fixing the time for Astrup to file this petition for a writ of certiorari at 90 days or less from October 23, 2024, which was the date of the lower court's denial of Astrup's motion to file a late petition for rehearing and his motion to recall the mandate?

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, did Astrup properly present by affidavit genuine issues as to material facts showing that Plaintiff United States of America was not entitled to the summary judgment as a matter of law?

3. Does the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution secure to Astrup:
a) the right to a meaningful response from the United States of America to a proper petition for redress of a violation of a provision of the Constitution; and
b) the right of enforcement — such as redress before taxes, should the government ignore its obligation to provide a meaningful response?

4. Is Astrup's petition for redress of the Government's violation of Articles I and V and the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America a proper petition for redress of grievances?

5. Does the Summary Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States of America v. Astrup, No. 23-847, U.S. entered June 24, 2024:
a) conflict with this Court's decision in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011); and/or
b) decide a federal constitution question that has not been, but should be settled by this Court?

6. Has the lower court's denial of Astrup's motion for a trial by jury violated rights secured to him by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

Whether the lower court appropriately entertained an untimely petition for rehearing and denied Astrup's motions within the context of SCOTUS Rule 13.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56