Did the panel err by holding that the 'law of the case' governed its decision in holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the petitioner's conviction?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) DID THE PANEL ERR BY HOLDING THAT THE “LAW OF THE CASE” GOVERNED ITS DECISION IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE PETITIONER’S CONVICTION? The Panel erred by relying on the “law of the case” doctrine to summarily affirm Petitioner’s conviction. The reluctance to reopening settled matters must give way because the earlier decision is clearly erroneous and works a manifest injustice. 2) DID THE PANEL ERR BY HOLDING THAT FOR PURPOSES OF A CONVICTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 924(C)(1)(A), WHETHER A DEFENDANT USED A PARTICULAR FIREARM PERTAINS TO THE MEANS BY WHICH THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, AND THEREFORE A JURY IS NOT REQUIRED TO DETERMINE UNANIMOUSLY THAT A PARTICULAR FIREARM WAS USED? The Panel erred by holding that possession of a particular type of firearm is not an element of the offense for a conviction of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking crime. ii