Questions Presented

Questions Presented therein, to . wit: : : : Questions Presented by Dr. Evans 1.) Are the Medicare rules, regulations, and policies controlling” in a criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1347; i.e. is evidence of compliance or non-compliance , with the rules, regulations and policies always relevant to a determination of fraud? 2.) If the Medicare rules, regulations, and polices are not “controlling,” but are “terms of art,” as the Fifth Circuit opined, must these rules, regulations, and policies nevertheless guide the “reliable principles and methods” of any witness proffered as an expert in eligibility for Medicare benefits? . _ ; Questions Presented by Dr. Barnes ‘ . 3.) 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 U.S. v. Ganja, 880 F.3d 760 (Sth Cir. 2018), which is not substantially distinguishable from the present case, and with the same lack of criminal intent and sufficiency of evidence? ; . 4.) Does the Panel Decision conflict with the holding and reversal in the co-defendant and alleged co-conspirator appeal in United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2021), ii , ~~" * “QUESTION(S) PRESENTED CONTINUED WL 716628, No. 18-31078, rendered February 24, 2021, by a different Panel of the Fifth Circuit? 5.) Does the Panel Decision conflict with U.S. v. Nora, supra, and U.S. v. Ganji, supra, both decisions from the Fifth Circuit? 6.) 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? 7) 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 substantially impeach the integrity of the proceedings, at that key and crucial time period, especially without the ability of the victim, Petitioner, to defend herself from it? : 8.) 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 Petitioners of due process of law and a fair trial? iii oo “