Whether the circuit court departed from the established rules of Whalen v. United States and Illinois v. Vitale regarding the double jeopardy clause

QUESTIONS. PRESENTED ae a cee . ISSUE I Whether the Third Circuit's denial/rejection that reasonable jurists would not debate the District Court's determination that Mr. Hayes convictions were not obtained in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, Blockburger Vv. United States, 284 US 299(1932); United States v. Barrington, 806 F.2d. 529(5th.Cir.1986); is reconcilable with the law of Whalen v. United States, 445 US 684, 100 S.ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d. 715(1980), and Illinois v. Vitale, 447 US 410, 100 S.Ct. 2260, 65 L.Ed.2d. 228(1980), and its progeny? ISSUE II . Whether the Third Circuit's neglect to determine de novoly issues arising from the defendants Sixth Amendment, are reconcilable with law of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 US 579, 125 L.Ed.2d. 469, 113 S.Ct. 2786(1993) and Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d. 177(2004), and its progeny? i < . .. .