Whether the Ninth Circuit Memorandum conflicted with this Court's decisions (e.g., Kumho Tire) regarding whether unreliability of an expert's testimony goes to weight rather than admissibility

Questions Presented 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit Memorandum conflicted with this Court’s decisions (e.g., Kumho Tire) regarding whether unreliability of an expert’s testimony goes to weight rather than admissibility. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit Memorandum conflicted with this Court’s decisions (e.g., Jackson v. Virginia) when it held that (a) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, even though the counts here are charged as separate executions of a scheme and the cited facts do not establish fraud as to these alleged executions; (b) there was sufficient evidence to support Anieze-Smith’s convictions; and (c) there was sufficient evidence to support the amount of restitution awarded against Anieze-Smith. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit Opinion conflicted with the Tenth Circuit decisions (e.g., Reitmeyer) when it held that the district court did not err in imposing restitution. 4. Whether Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), applies to restitution given the Court’s precedent holding that restitution is criminal punishment and that the law does not distinguish one form of punishment from another for Apprendi purposes. 1 List of Prior Proceedings Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 12.4, the Petitioners listed below file a single petition for writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to cover multiple judgments below. Petitioners United States District Court for the Central District of California United States v. Abdul King Garba, C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-220-DMG Judgment entered June 3, 2016 United States v. Queen Anieze-Smith, C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-220-DMG Judgment entered June 8, 2016 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (consolidated) United States v. Abdul King Garba, Ninth Circuit Case No. 16-50204 Judgment entered August 8, 2019 United States v. Queen Anieze-Smith, Ninth Circuit Case No. 16-50208 Judgment entered August 8, 2019 Respondent in all above cases: United States of America 2