Does an appellate court's failure to recall its mandate to amend its opinion — that is predicated on the government's legal argument of inaccurate contentions of facts engender a miscarriage of justice?

Question(s) Presented The notion of miscarriage of justice prohibits a court from disregarding the fact that its opinion rest solely on criminal offenses that a defendant neither pled guilty to, nor was charged with by way of indictment. Here, the Third Circuit inadvertently predicated its determination to affirm Christian Womack's life sentences under the government's legal arguments of contentions of the fact that, Christian Womack pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor by force, and séx trafficking of adults by force. In November 2020, the habes court relied on the Third Circuit's opinions' facts to deny Christian Womask's challenges of the constitutionality of his conviction and santence. Recently, the government averred that, Christian Womack neither pled guilty to, nor was charged with the offenses that the Third Circuit affirmed his life sentences under. Following that, Christian Womack moved to recall the Third Circuit's mandate. On October 7th, 2022, the Third Circuit denied his request without issuing an opinion. Does an appellate court's failure to recall its mandate to amend its epinion — that is predicated on the government's legal argument of inaccurate contentions of facts engender a miscarriage of justice? page iii