1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in
denying a certificate of appealability (COA) by
holding that no jurist of reason would find the
petitioner 's constitutional claim debatable, when
another panel of the same court had found the
identical constitutional claim "debatable among
jurists of reason " in United States v. Prasad, No. 23-
1968 (CA9 Aug. 26, 2024).

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the
mandate rule and equal protection principles by
foreclosing appellate review to Mr. Kavuru while
permitting similarly situated defendants, Mr. Prasad
and Ms. Patnaik, to proceed with their materially
indistinguishable appeals raising the exact
constitutional materiality question under 18 U.S.C. §
1546(a). See United States v. Patnaik, 125 F.4th 1223
(CA9 2025).

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability by holding that no jurist of reason would find the petitioner's constitutional claim debatable when another panel of the same court had found an identical constitutional claim debatable, and whether the Ninth Circuit violated the mandate rule and equal protection principles by foreclosing appellate review to the petitioner while permitting similarly situated defendants to proceed with materially indistinguishable appeals