1. In Connecticut v. Johnson , 460 U.S. 73, 88 (1983) (plurality opinion), the
court held that instructions 1"permitt[ing] the jury to convict [a defendant]
without ever considering the evidence concerning an element of the crimes
charged. ..deprivefthe defendant] of constitutional rights so basic to a fair
trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error. The
question presented is: Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals err in finding
that Castiblan^o failed to State a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and the District Court was correct in its ruling when it
held that a '"no 1 response to the jury's question during deliberations
relieving] the jury from considering the knowledge element in counts one and
two of the indictment" (Appendix 1 * 32) was an error of constitutional
magnitude but (non-structural and harmless thus) insignificant as to grant
habeas relief?

2. Under the rule announced in Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275 (1993), a
trial court's failure to correctly instruct the jury respecting the
requirements articulated in In re Winship , 370 U.S. 358, 364 (1970), deprives
the accused of his. Fifth Amendment right to be found guilty "according to the
procedure and standards appropriate for criminal trials in federal courts."
and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and a fair trial. The cpestion
presented is: Should the rule of Sullivan apply to the instruction at issue?:
In other Wo^ds, whether a supplemental instruction relieving the Government of
the burden enunciated in Winship on the question of the defendant's state of
mind is a Cage error. If such is the case, should this error operate to
acquit Castiblanco of the two offenses charged in the indictment?

3. Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals err in finding that Castiblanco
failed to state a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and the
District Court was correct in its ruling when it held that a legally incorrect
answer to a jury's question during deliberations concerning the Government's
burden to determine Castiblanco's guilt can be cured by.a cursory direction to
read again a portion of the written instructions previously given to the jury?

Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals err in finding that Castiblaneo failed to state a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right?