Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has so far departed from established Federal Law and the legal standards set out by this Court in MILLER-EL v COCKRELL, 537 US 322 (2003), when it denied an application for a Certificate of Appealability, which demonstrated the District Court exceeded its own authority when imposing cumulative punishments not authorized by Congress, in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against Double Jeopardy and the Constitutional Principle of the Separation of Powers in regards to sentencing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. : |. Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has so far departed from established Federal Law : (28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)] and the legal standards set out by this Court in MILLER-EL v COCKRELL, 537 : US 322 (2003), when it denied an application for a Certificate of Appealability, which demonstrated : ___ the District Court exceeded its own authority when imposing cumulative punishments not authorized : by Congress, in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against Double Jeopardy and the Constitutional Principle of the Separation of Powers in regards to sentencing, and which was fully: supported by Jurists of reason from the directly-on-point controlling precedents of this Honorable : Supreme Court in WHALEN v UNITED STATES, 445 US 684 (1980) and its progeny ? : ll. Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has decided an important Federal Question in a way that conflicts with the controlling decisions of this Court, when it decided the separate convictions : and cumulative punishments imposed for both, the and its necessarilyincluded without the Congressional Authority required, IS NOT in violation of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against Double Jeopardy OR the Constitutional Principle " of the Separation of Powers in regards to sentencing, which is contrary to and in manifest violation : of the directly-on-point controlling decisions of this Honorable Supreme Court found in : (1) WHALEN : vy UNITED STATES, 445 US 684 (1980); (2) UNITED STATES v DIXON, 509 US 688 (1993); (3) BALL v UNITED STATES, 470 US 856 (1985); and (4) HARRIS v OKLAHOMA, 433 US 682 (1977) ? . ii. .