Whether this case should be granted certiorari for full briefing on issues already decided in Maxwell's favor by this Court or whether a G.V.R. would be appropriate in the first instance?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . Maxwell has convictions for 18 U.S.C. :1343, 1349 (wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy) based on the intangible property right to information to make an economic decision and intangible right of control; 18 U.S.C. -§1956(h) (money laundering : conspiracy) based on the wire fraud convictions and revenue streams long past alleged objective of conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. §922(g) (1), §922(d)(1) (conspiracy to transfer a firearm to a nonviolent felon); 18 U.S.C. §1512(k), §1512(c) (2) (over broad reading of §1512(¢) (2)). All of these charges were subsumed into an eight-month-long "monster trial" under yet another conspiracy 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) RICO conspiracy (the above were predicates), all based on an alleged enterprises that did not have to actually . exist. I. The Supreme Court in Ciminelli, Bruen, Rahimi, Cleveland, Kelly, and Fischer, issued (or will issue) post conviction/post Maxwell's Third Circuit Panel decision (July 15, 2022), opinions that address and limit the scope and/or constitutionality of the statutes applied to Maxwell. (Cleveland and Kelly applicable under Ciminelli) Because this Court has already addressed the issues in Maxwell's favor, post trial and/or post panel decision, | the question is: Whether this case should be granted certiorari for full briefing on issues already decided in Maxwell's favor by this Court or whether a G.V.R. would be appropriate in the first instance? II. Whether the use by the jury and trial and appellate court(s) of 276 material exhibits which were never offered or admitted into evidence, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, constitute such a denial of due process and a Lo -_ deviation from the American adversarial system of justice as to , constitute structural error? -ii yD ‘