QP1: Whether evidence of repeat, distribution-sized drug transactions alone is sufficient to prove a drug conspiracy, as opposed to a mere buyer-seller relationship; QP2: Whether a district court can never plainly err by failing to give an unrequested buyer-seller jury instruction

I. Whether the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, erred as a matter of law in holding that, pursuant to Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703 (1943), evidence of repeat, distribution-sized drug transactions alone is sufficient to prove a conspiracy, as opposed to a mere buyer-seller relationship, switching sides of a longstanding circuit split. II. Whether the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, erred as a matter of law in holding that, pursuant to United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020), a district court can never plainly err by failing to give an unrequested buyerseller jury instruction, creating a split with three circuits holding that the party-presentation principle does not preclude plainerror review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) .