Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider binding authority on a defendant's right to be present at a material sentencing proceeding

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Quinetta Grant was charged in and pleaded to a One-Count Information charging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) (Count 1). Prior to sentencing, a hearing was held in the court’s chambers where, absent the presence of Ms Grant, the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney resolved all factual and legal issues for the sentencing such that the actual sentencing hearing was nothing more than a ministerial act. Notably, Ms Grant cooperated with the government, for which she received U.S.S.G § 5K1.1 downward departure but, as demonstrated within, the downward departure started from an erroneously high level due to violations of the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals cited 3 conflicting out of Circuit decisions which addressed the right of defendants to their presence at sentencing but ignored binding authority by this Court and found no Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) plain error. 1.) Where the Court of Appeals failed to consider binding authority holding that a defendant’s absence from a material sentencing proceeding constituted “plain error”, should this Court vacate and remand for reconsideration? . 2.) | Where Ms Grant’s sentence was enhanced by attribution of all acts and omissions of all individuals involved in the offense without making an explicit finding as to “the scope of the criminal activity jointly undertaken by the defendant”, was Ms Grant denied her rights under US.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B)? ‘ 3.) | Where multiple additional errors affected petitioner’s conviction and/or sentence in the courts below, should this Court exercise it’s supervisory power to vacate her conviction and sentence? i "y ‘ 2