Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1203 should be interpreted in accordance with its underlying treaty and the principles in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014) as applying to hostage taking related to international terrorism, and, if not, whether the statute and underlying treaty violate the Treaty Power and the Constitution's structural limits on federal authority, questions avoided in Bond

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1203 should be interpreted in accordance with its underlying treaty and the principles in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014) as applying to hostage taking related to international terrorism, and, if not, whether the statute and underlying treaty violate the Treaty Power and the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority, questions avoided in Bond. (2) Whether a recusal claim, under both 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Due Process Clause, has a timeliness requirement and, if so, what is the appropriate timeliness standard and standard of review for such claims; and whether recusal is required when a judge presiding over a federal capital trial simultaneously applies to become the United States Attorney for the same office prosecuting the case. i