Whether the Third Circuit improperly defined the factual context and eliminated the significant threat requirement in a deadly force case involving police officers' use of force

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. In this deadly force case, the Third Circuit removed altogether from its definition of the ‘specific factual context’ of this case the Autopsy Report findings that the Officers shot Petitioners’ deceased twice in the back which the Officers explicitly deny doing. The Third Circuit compounded the above error by sanctioning the District Court’s making of the identical error. Do these errors violate this Court’s directive in Tolan vs. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014) that “Courts must take care not to define a case’s context in a manner that imports genuinely disputed factual propositions.” Tolan vs. Cotton, at 657. and warrant the granting of this Court’s supervisory authority? Il. Did the Third Circuit eliminate in the decision under review the lynchpin requirement of Graham vs. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) that to justify the use of deadly force, there must exist a significant and immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer(s) or another human being? i RELATED CASES Kelley vs. O’Malley, et. al, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3283 (Order and Opinion at Rule 12 Stage)