1. Whether the mens rea and actus reus requirements for aiding and abetting
liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 demand proof of specific intent and affirmative
participation, as mandated by Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014),
or whether mere association or general awareness suffices, as erroneously
applied in this case, perpetuating a profound circuit split that fractures equal
justice across the nation.

2. Whether a conviction under § 2, rooted in an indictment devoid of overt acts
or specific intent, compounded by trial errors including constructive
amendment, suppressed evidence, and ineffective counsel, violates the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments, compelling coram nobis relief, especially where
lower courts unjustly imposed procedural bars despite pro se challenges —
such as financial devastation forcing self-representation after counsel 's
egregious failure to unearth exculpatory evidence or assert critical defenses,
thus amplifying systemic disparities that deny the innocent their
constitutional right to justice.

Whether the mens rea and actus reus requirements for aiding and abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 demand proof of specific intent and affirmative participation, as mandated by Rosemond v. United States, or whether mere association or general awareness suffices