1. Whether a court of appeals violates- due process by declining to recall a mandate
where a petitioner demonstrates that he was convicted of a non-existent offense,
specifically, "attempting to aid and abet" and the court's judgement relied
oh'a theory not authorized by statute or federal precedent.

2. Whether the omission of jury instructions oh aiding and abetting when the
government's entire theory of liability rested on that construct requires
a court to conduct a. harmless-error analysis under Neder v. United States,
and'whether the failure to. do so. renders subsequent appellate arid postconviction
review 'fundamentally flawed.

3. Whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to notice is violated where the
indictment fails to specify the subsection of 18 U.S.C. § 2 — § 2(a) or §
2(b) — under which he is charged, particularly where that statutory ambiguity
becomes dispositive in postconviction review.

4. Whether the appellate court's denial of a motion to recall the mandate without
addressing substantial, intervening, and unadjudicated arguments that concern
the legality and constitutionality of a conviction conflicts with this Court's
holdings that appellate courts have a continuing duty to prevent miscarriages
of justice.

Whether a court of appeals violates due process by declining to recall a mandate where a petitioner demonstrates conviction of a non-existent offense and the court's judgment relied on a theory not authorized by statute or federal precedent