Does the Panel Decision conflict with its own authority and other circuit court decisions?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the Panel Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, rendered October 28, 2020 (979 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2020), WL 6304699, rehearing denied January 4, 2021 (hereinafter Panel Decision), conflict with its own authority, holding and reversal in US. v. Ganji, 880 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2018), which is not substantially distinguishable from the present case, and with the same lack of criminal intent and sufficiency of evidence? (2) Does the Panel Decision conflict with the holding and reversal in the co-defendant and alleged coconspirator appeal in United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2021), WL 716628, No. 18-31078, rendered February 24, 2021, by a different Panel of the Fifth Circuit? (3) Does the Panel Decision conflict with U.S. v. Nora, supra, and U.S. v. Ganji, supra, both decisions from the Fifth Circuit? (4) Does the Panel Decision create a lack of uniformity with U.S. v. Nora, supra, and U.S. v. Ganji, supra, and other cases, particularly regarding sufficiency of evidence for the knowledge and intent requisite to sustain a conviction? (5) Did the improper comments and conduct by the government prosecutor, during the government’s rebuttal closing argument, as repeatedly found by the District Court and Fifth Circuit Panel, constitute a violation of Petitioner’s rights to due process of law and a fair trial; and, unconstitutionally and ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued substantially impeach the integrity of the proceedings, at that key and crucial time period, especially without the ability of the victim, Petitioner, to defend himself from it? (6) Was the District Court’s and Panel’s reading and interpretation of the obstruction statute, 18 U.S.C. 1516(a), as applied to that count of conviction, Count 47, reasonable; or, unconstitutionally overly broad to fit the government’s case and sustain the convictions, even though the statute can clearly and reasonably be read to require that Petitioner, and not Medicare, be the recipient of $100,000.00 per year benefit from his Medicare billings, or, at least, so confusing as to violate the rule of lenity, and due process of law. (7) Did the purported expert, Dr. Brobson Lutz’s unqualified, confusing, misleading and uneducated testimony as an expert, particularly in the area of homebound status, unconstitutionally and unreasonably confuse the jury and deprive Dr. Barnes of due process of law and a fair trial?