Is the principle of separation-of-powers, which prohibits judicial encroachment on the exclusive power of Congress to make laws, violated, when a court of appeals denies a motion to recall the mandate for a decision that: interpreted an enhancing statute that is subsequently explicitly abrogated by a 'clarification' of that enhancing statute by Congress and that clarification is the exact same interpretation of the enhancing statute put forward by petitioner on direct appeal and rejected by the court of appeals, resulting in petitioner having to serve an additional fifteen additional years in prison not prescribed in the law passed by Congress?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED At IS THE PRINCIPLE OF , .WHICH PROHIBITS WDUDECGIAL ENCROACHMENT ON THE EXCLUSIVE POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAKE LAWS, VIOLATED, WHEN A COURT OF APPEALS DENIES A MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE FOR A DECISION THAT: INTERPRETED AN ENHANCING STATUTE THAT IS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPLICITLY ABROGATED BY A "CLARIFICATION" OF THAT ENHANCING STATUTE BY CONGRESS AND THAT CLARIFICATION IS THE EXACT SAME INTERPRETATION OF THE ENHANCING STATUTE PUT FORWARD BY PETITIONER ON DIRECT APPEAL AND REJECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESULTING IN PETITIONER HAVING TO SERVE AN ADDITIONAL FIFTEEN ADDITIONAL YEARS IN PRISON NOT PRESCRIBED IN THE LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS? Be . ZLN IS THE PRINCIPLE OF WHICH PROHIBITS CONGRESSIONAL ENCROACHMENT ON JUDICIAL POWERS, VIOLATED IF THE LAWS CODEFLIED IN 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244¢€a), 2255(h), COVERING THE PROVISIONS FOR FILING A SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONs OR THE GENERAL SAVINGS CLAUSE, 1 U.S.C. § 109;.ISsUSEB TO ESTOP A COURT FROM EXERCISING ITS INHERENT POWER TO RECALL A MANDATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE DESCRIBED IN QUESTION A, ABOVE. 5 % | LIST OF .PARTIES | All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.