Whether the 11th Circuit's holding can be reconciled with Rosemond

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. In Rosemond v. United States, this Court held that the government establishes that a defendant aided and abetted an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offense only if it proves that “the defendant actively participated in the underlying drug trafficking or violent crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun during the crime’s commission.” 572 U.S. 65, 67 (2014). The Eleventh Circuit agreed that the government presented no evidence showing that Mr. Steiner was aware of the firearms before his coconspirators initially brandished them, but found that a jury could nevertheless infer that Mr. Steiner had a reasonable opportunity to quit the crime as a result of the amount of time that passed after he learned of the guns’ presence. Can the 11th Circuit’s holding be reconciled with Rosemona? I. Does the Eleventh Circuit’s practice of applying published panel orders—issued in the context of an application for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion and decided in a truncated time frame without adversarial testing—as binding precedent in a// subsequent appellate and collateral proceedings deprive inmates and criminal defendants of their right to due process, fundamental fairness, and meaningful review of the claims presented in their § 2255 motions and direct appeals? Il. In Jn re Colon, 826 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016), the Eleventh Circuit held that a conviction for aiding abetting a crime of violence qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). Does this ii holding—which is premised upon the determination that an aider and abettor of an offense necessarily commits all the elements of the principal offense— conflict with Rosemona? iii