Whether the Staff Attorney Program in the Eleventh Circuit and the Middle District of Florida violate the non-delegation principles of Article III duties to non-Article III decision makers; exceeding the limited rule making authority of the federal courts

Questions Presented 1. Whether the Staff Attorney Program in the Eleventh Circuit and the Middle District , of Florida violate the non-delegation principles of Article III duties to non-Article III decision makers; exceeding the limited rule making authority of the federal courts. 2. Whether Pro Se appeals are Unconstitutionally being decided by Staff Attorneys who are supervised not by Article III judges, but rather by "Supervisory" Staff Attorney, thereby reducing the quality of decision by the lower courts and allowing for opinions seemingly issued by Article III judges, but in reality issued by non-judicial actors who are frequently only a year or two out of law school, who have abitions to become prosecutors (thereby compromising impartiality), and with only "rubber stamping" by Article III judges which results in a "pay to play" venue in the lower courts as Pro Se filers under this scheme do not have access to Article III Judge determinations, while counseled petitions do have such access. 3. Whether the "law of the case" doctrine requires a court to at the very least explain why it is reversing a decision held previously in the same case or to “stick with: the previously held decision. 4. Whether the inclusion of simple receipt and possession of pornography under the definition of "child predator" or even "sex offender" represents an irrebuttable presumption that is overly broad in definition, and if so whether reliance on "the nature and characteristics" of the crime under the §3553(a) Factors to justify a denial of "compassionate release" under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), in light cf the evidence actually presented before the lower courts and the Sentencing Commission's study on noncontact offense recidivism. i —