Does the Eleventh Circuit too rigidly apply its 'prior panel precedent rule' —effectively denying Eleventh Circuit defendants their statutory right to appeal and constitutional right to due process of law— by holding that three-judge panels of that court must follow even an admittedly 'flawed' prior panel decision that failed to consider precedent(s) of this Court in existence at the time, and whose mode of legal analysis is now demonstrably inconsistent with intervening precedents of this Court, when most other circuits broadly agree that a three-judge panel may not only reconsider but should decline to follow an obviously 'flawed' prior precedent under such circumstances, as stare decisis requires that subsequent panels adhere to the correct mode of analysis dictated by precedents of this Court?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW | Does the Eleventh Circuit too rigidly apply its “prior panel precedent rule” — effectively denying Eleventh Circuit defendants their statutory right to appeal and ! constitutional right to due process of law— by holding that three-judge panels of that ! court must follow even an admittedly “flawed” prior panel decision that failed to consider precedent(s) of this Court in existence at the time, and whose mode of legal | analysis is now demonstrably inconsistent with intervening precedents of this Court, when most other circuits broadly agree that a three-judge panel may not only ! reconsider but should decline to follow an obviously “flawed” prior precedent under | such circumstances, as stare decisis requires that subsequent panels adhere to the | correct mode of analysis dictated by precedents of this Court? | i INTERESTED PARTIES | | There are no