Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered a decision in conflict with the decision of this Court when it held in United States v. Vasquez, 611 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 2010) that the Due Process requirement of 'Notice' is not required for violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2250(a)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED i) whethes the united States Coukt” of Appeals fob the Seventh Cikeuit enteted a decision in Conflict With the decision of this Coutt when gh held | nm United States Yusguez , Gil F-3d. 338 (71 Gt toco) That the Bae Due Phocess hequitercent of “Nohce” is Nol heguihed fob violations of title 18, undles | States code, Section 2250la). See Lambet! ¥ Califeknia, 355 uS. gas (1957) 2) Uheth eb untted States v: Yas quer, gil F.3d 338 (7m Cite polo) Yiolales The “Notice” heguihertenT in Lambeth vi Califoknia, 355 US. 225 Cits7) | as applied by HonTanya adalten Phat? within The Coutt’s verdicl of guilt when the Dishricl Court found the petilronet quilty of Voleling ig u-s-C$ 2950 (a), and repeatedly kefused O | = aexnowledg¢ This Coutl’s buling in dartbell % Celipernia, | 355 us. 225 Crs7) in Spite of nurtehousS Mefions fok beconsidehation in light of manifest ebbo of LoS 3) Whethel This Case fs of Such impetaltye impoblance | to the Public That ff yustifies devéation flor nobmal appellate Phaclice.