1. Whether the federal courts of appeals are irreconcilably divided on the proper formulation of entrapment jury instructions, specifically: (A) what constitutes "government inducement"; (B) whether instructions must explicitly state that predisposition existed before government contact; and (C) whether the burden of proof must be explicitly stated within the entrapment instruction itself.

2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit violated due process by failing to address a limited remand order issued under Rule 60(b)(6) and Rule 11(a) and 11(b), thereby leaving unresolved constitutional claims pending for over twelve months.

3. Whether the district court addressed the merits of Appellants Habeas Corpus 2255; pertaining to PSR record from previous case # 2:00-cr-37-FT.M29D has relevant criminal history Shepheard Documentation Validation?

Whether the federal courts of appeals are irreconcilably divided on the proper formulation of entrapment jury instructions regarding government inducement, predisposition timing, and burden of proof allocation, and whether the Eleventh Circuit violated due process by failing to address a limited remand order under Rule 60(b)(6) leaving constitutional claims unresolved