1. Does a deliberate ignorance instruction in a physician prosecution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) that incorporates an objective yet "ambiguous" standard of "authorized" prescribing have the improper effect of allowing criminal liability based on the mental state of a hypothetical "reasonable" doctor rather than based on the "knowing" mental state of the defendant himself, as required by Ruan v. United States?

2. Is a deliberate ignorance instruction appropriate when there is no evidence the defendant took affirmative steps to avoid learning the truth of a relevant fact?

Whether a deliberate ignorance instruction in a physician prosecution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) impermissibly reduces the required mens rea by incorporating an objective standard of 'authorized' prescribing