Appropriate standard of review for Eleventh Circuit's grant of summary affirmance

QUESTION PRESENTED 1.What is the appropriate standard of review, when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal improperly and controversy, Grants the Government's Motion for Summary Affirmance recognizing that “Jurisdiction Errors are fundamental errors that warrant coram nobis relief’ and is “a genuine claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner guilty may well be proper ground for coram nobis relief as a matter of law” and, “concluding that a defect in the indictment, which alleged specific conduct that was no longer a federal crime, constituted a jurisdictional error warranting coram nobis relief”, because the vessel was flagged under St. Kitts & Nevis rather than Panama, in which the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is drawn into question, and the QUESTION IS, Does the Supreme Court Should hold that the prosecution commits a Due Process Violation for willful suppression of fundamental material evidence favorable to the defense but undisclosed, when the prosecution has the ironclad constitutional duty to disclose” and, there is a substantive question, materially evidence pursuant to 19 CFR Part 4, “factual error material”, not disclosed, that the prosecution should have to disclose the Party in the personal capacity under Country Party to the MARPOL at the time of MARPOL violation, at the trial or pretrial, and is a Jurisdictional error that warrant coram nobis relief because they render the proceeding itself irregular and invalid, when the primary duty of the justice, is to protect the public, where Pena is the victim and lacks subject matter jurisdiction, nor present in the physical location where a court exercises its power at the time of MARPOL violation, and indeed, “sound reasons exist for failure to seek earlier relief”?? 1 MARPOL Art. 2 (5). Administration means the Government of the state under whose authority the ship is operating, : see