Did the Fifth Circuit err in holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike a juror during trial based on perceived bias against all four defendants, when that juror became the presiding juror, and two alternate jurors were available to step in?

Questions Presented for Review 1. Did the Fifth Circuit err in holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike a juror during trial based on perceived bias against all four defendants, when that juror became the presiding juror, and two alternate jurors were available to step in? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit err in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support Petitioner’s Stiger’s health care fraud conspiracy conviction? 3. Regarding the restitution amount imposed on Ms. Stiger, should this Court’s reasoning in Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1626 (2017), which held that joint and several liability is invalid for forfeiture awards, also apply to awards of restitution? 4. There is a conflict between the Fifth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit on whether a special condition of supervised release that permits the probation officer to visit a defendant at any time at their home or elsewhere is unreasonably broad, with the Seventh Circuit holding this language is unreasonably broad and remanding for resentencing in several cases in 2015-2016, but the Fifth Circuit disagreeing with the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning, and upholding the validity of this language in United States v. Payton, 959 F.3d 654 (5" Cir. 2020). The Fifth Circuit upheld this special condition language in Petitioner Stiger’s case based upon Payton. Should this Court resolve this conflict between the Fifth and Seventh Circuits? 1