Whether the Eleventh Circuit exceeds its statutory mandate

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit exceeds its statutory mandate under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C) to determine only whether an inmate has made a “prima facie showing” when it issues second or successive orders to resolve the merits of open legal questions and subsequently treats those orders as binding precedent in later appeals. 2. Whether the Due Process Clause permits the Eleventh Circuit to afford preclusive effect to a prior panel decision that 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. 3. Whether Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) is categorically a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(A), if the offense is indivisible, and juries in three circuits are routinely instructed according to those circuits’ pattern instructions that the “property” taken may include “intangible rights” and the offense may be committed by simply causing the victim to “fear harm” which includes “fear of financial loss as well as fear of physical violence.” i