Whether public perception of judicial integrity is impacted by a judge affirming a conviction and later attempting to pass upon its validity; Whether the right to counsel's assistance in drafting a Rule 33 motion is left to chance; Whether Rule 41(g) is functionally void due to federal agents storing pretrial property at local police stations; Whether Rule 41(g)'s property return procedure is violated without determining property location; Whether delay can result in habeas petition granting; Whether administrative delays impact habeas corpus petition disposition

Questions Presented Whether public perception of the integrity and appearance of impartiality in the judiciary is deteriorated when, over an objection, the same judge who affirmed a conviction later attempts to pass upon its validity. 22-3311 Whether the right to counsel's assistance in drafting a Rule 33 motion for a new trial should be left to happenstance. 23-1003 Is rule 41(g) functionally. void because federal agents across the country routinely store pretrial property at the local police station, or does the rule contemplate revoking the federal government's constructive or joint possession’ of that citizen's property? 23-1735 Without determining any property's location, does it violate the plain text of Rule 41(g)'s property return procedure, when a district court concludes, and an appellate court affirms, without evidence or affidavit that the property sought to be returned is not in the possession of the government? 23-1735 If delay alone can result in the granting of a habeas petition, then why not bail as an intermediate sanction for less extreme delays in answering the petition? 23-2582 Considering that delays in habeas corpus petitions are becoming nationally lengthier as population increases, while judicial resources remain the same; Should release pending disposition also comprehensively include administrative delays? 23-2582 1. That is to say revoking the federal government's interest in retaining the property, as distinct from the State's interest --which is a separate question for it's own courts-if they have charges pending, which they do not and never did here. -2