Whether the underlying activity of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is ethical or not

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the underlying activity of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is ethical or not under Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, at *151 (1985); Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, at *244 — *245 (2008); Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709, at *716 (2016). 2. Whether the Colorado Department of Corrections is trying to comingle two administrative regulations in order to confuse, confound, or disconcert an attempt to complete the grievance process under Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, at *1859 — *1860 (2016). 3. Whether governing law in the Tenth Circuit—See e.g., Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, at *1210 (10t Cir. 2000), precludes summary judgment under Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, at *248 (1986). 4, Whether a prima facie claim of deliberate indifference was established, and whether prison officials, acting with deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial risk of serious damage to his future health under Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, at *85 (1998); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, at *104 (1976); and Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, at *90 (2007). 5. Whether the use of Dr. Perez or Mr. Munroe’s statements violated the Confrontation Clause under United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, at *36, fn.19 (2000). 6. Whether the fact-finder would give greater or less weight to a DOC employee’s affidavit which contradicts her own prior deposition testimony simply because of her official character under Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, at *851 (1990). 7. Whether error affected the defendant’s substantial rights and implicated the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings under United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, at *732 (1993). See, e.g., a) Whether or not full faith and credit has been given a foreign judgment, and whether the revival results in a new judgment under Baker v. GMC, 522 U.S. 222, at *233 (1998). b) Whether the Department of Corrections enforcement action is time barred and, more particularly, whether Colorado state law determines the timeliness of the Government enforcement action under State ex ; rel. Coffman v. Robert J. Hopp & Assocs., LLC, 2018 COA 69, at (37, 442 P.3d 986, at *997 (Colo. Ct. App., May 17, 2018). c) Whether the United States District Court for the District of Colorado properly entertained jurisdiction of the claim based on Colorado law under 28 U.S.C. § 1348 (8); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, at *545 — *550 (1974); Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, at *144 — *145 (2011). d) Whether the State of Colorado and the Department of Corrections are different sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes and whether the prosecutorial powers of the two jurisdictions have independent origins, or, said conversely, whether those powers derive from the same ultimate source under United States v. Wheeler, 435 U. S. 318, at *320 (1978). e) Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the State of Colorado and the Colorado Department of Corrections from successively prosecuting a defendant on like charges for the same conduct under Heath v. Ala., 474 U.S. 82, at *88 — *89 (1985); Robertson v. Watson, 560 U.S. 272, at *275 (2010); and Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960, at *1979 (2019).