Whether the District Court erred by instructing the jury

QUESTION PRESENTED The questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether the District Court erred by instructing the instruction based upon the facts in this case when it denied defendant’s jury instruction request to charge the elements of willful-blindness instruction under Global-Tech compliance Inc. v. SAE .131 S.CT. 2060 (2011), and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously reviewed the jury charge under the standard of review : of abuse of discretion as rather than de novo. 2. Whether this Court’s ruling in Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022), interpreting 21 U.S.C. § 841, also applies to prosecutions in which a practice manager is charged where authorized healthcare providers in the course of their employment at a licensed pain management clinic, were relied upon to prescribe controlled substances as authorized by the DEA and all practitioners who went to trial jointly with Petitioner Hofstetter were acquitted of all substantive counts. Pursuant to Ruan is the United States required to prove “that a defendant knew or intended that his or her conduct was unauthorized”, Id., at 15, or under the facts of this case that an employee provider’s conduct was unauthorized, evaluated under a subjective standard. : 3. The Third question presented is whether the Court’s recent ruling in Ruan applies to offenses charged under 21 USC §846 and §856. i