Are inferior courts allowed unrestricted freedom to interpret the Supreme Court's holding in Ruan v United States?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ~ 1. Are inferior courts, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in particular, allowed unres tricted and unrestrained freedom to interpret the clear and unequivocal : . Holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ruan v United States, 149 S Ct oo 370, and bend it, to its own will and circuit precedents , because it is unpalatable?; to admit in “its own Opinion that "the district court's jury instruction erred by not including the mens rea element" and another admission that "such an error does warrant reversal" yet purposefully and deliberately ignore the error and affirm a physician's wrongful convictions?; or to grant vacatur of 21 USC §841 convictions, as it occurred in the Eleventh Circuit, and uphold the collateral charges (i.e §846 Conspiracy and §2 Aiding & Abetting) predicated only upon the just vacated substantive charges that "infected" them all? ; ‘ , oo 2, ‘Why are pro se litigants consciously ignored, routinely relegated to | the background, considered lower tier sub-class of citizen-litigants, whose arguments can be dismissed or bottom-shelved, just because they are not represented ; by counsel who is an accepted member of the exclusive club or clique?; even whose successful, forceful, provable, and well-documented satisfaction of the circuit court's requirements on the plain error test in this particular case, irrefragable , : though those arguments may be, would still be treated contemptibly, as just an . insignificant; non-occurrence or fiction? in contravention to well-established Supreme Court holdings? 3. How many errors of law that results in mistakes in jury instructions ; are acceptable, excusable, and permissible before a reviewing court will consider them prejudicial and not "harmless" or an "abuse of discretion"? two?, three?, a : ; QUESTION(S) PRESENTED oe _ maybe four?; Supreme Court precedents consistently point to a mere instance to merit r : reversal while the appellate court reviewed three maybe four and continued to _ affirm. Is this not just another species of fraud or judicial obfuscation? a 4. Has the current. jurisprudence changed so drastically “to allow conviction in an indictment of a crime of conspiracy where there only exists a "conspiracy of one'?; can the prosecution have only a sole witness which was given a "sweetheart deal", who was documented to have repeatedly lied on rebuttal, as was shown in the evidence, and reflected in the testimony, who may not even have been _ allowable as a witness because of the "intracorporate corispiracy doctrine", and convict a physician who did not do anything to advance any goals of the conspiracy, . "as was shown in the evidence and stated in the testimony, and who lacks the scienter |. required for a felony conviction? . : : 5. Can the prosecution declare a deliberate lie,’ a fabricated misrepresentation of fact it is aware to be untrue, in what is akin to a false . testimony at closing argument to the jury, free. from. the constraints of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution that removes the ‘ opportunity for a rebuttal, to prejudicially entice the jury to convict? . oo 6. Must circuit courts uniformly and automatically defer the resolution . of the claim of Ineffective Assistance of: Counsel, despite the existence of — emimerated, well-documented, knowable, and provable myriad derelictions of duty by ; trial attorney, (before and during, and in this particular case, the rushed 4-day trial of a very complex case), to a subsequent collateral attack (i.e. §2255 ’ Motion)? ; . | a ca _