Is a criminal defendant's right to Due Process violated by the Eleventh Circuit's rule affording binding force and preclusive effect to a prior panel's published decision denying a pro se petitioner's application for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Is a criminal defendant’s right to Due Process in his direct appeal violated by the Eleventh Circuit’s rule affording binding force and preclusive effect to a prior panel’s published decision denying a pro se petitioner’s application for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, which was: based on a mandatory form allowing only bare legal argument; issued under a strict 30-day deadline; and immune from any petition for rehearing or a writ of certiorari? 2. Ifa completed offense is categorically a “crime of violence” within 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause because it has the use or threat of “violent force” as an element, is the attempted commission of that offense automatically and categorically a “crime of violence,” irrespective of whether the substantial step required for conviction is violent, and even if the attempt offense does not require specific intent? 3. Does Congress’ express “Clarification of Section 924(c) of Title 18, United States Code” in Section 403 of the First Step Act apply to a defendant convicted and sentenced prior to the enactment of the Act, but whose sentence has not yet been “imposed” because his case remains “pending” on direct review? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no