Did the court's fealty to ministerial en banc procedures justify abdication of its constitutional and statutory obligations to adjudicate an as-of-right sentence appeal?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The right to direct review of a federal sentence is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The constitution obligates Article IIT courts to entertain cases they have jurisdiction over. A First Circuit panel met these obligations: it reviewed and vacated a procedurally infirm sentence under binding circuit precedent. But a three-act sequence of subsequent en banc orders nullified the panel’s work. First, the court granted a government-filed petition for rehearing en banc. Second, it vacated the panel opinion and judgment. Third, a six-judge en banc court deadlocked three-tothree, issuing an order affirming the sentence. The cited justification for this affirmance was the disagreement over what to do about circuit precedent. The questions presented are: 1. Did the court’s fealty to ministerial en banc procedures justify abdication of its constitutional and statutory obligations to adjudicate an as-of-right sentence appeal? 2. If so, should this Court summarily vacate and remand with instructions to either conduct reasonableness review under applicable law or dis-en banc the case and reinstate the properly entered panel opinion and judgment? i PARTIES Emiliano Emmanuel Flores-Gonzalez, Petitioner, was the defendant-appellant below. The United States of America, Respondent, was the plaintiff-appellee below.