1. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
12(b)(3), requires a defendant to raise pretrial, or
show good cause, an "as applied" constitutional Fifth
Amendment due process vagueness challenge without
consideration of whether the challenge was then
reasonably available and could have been determined
without a trial on the merits.

2. Whether the Fifth Amendment due process
prohibition against "as applied" vagueness required
the appellate panel herein to reverse the trial court's
denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal at
the close of the government's case alleging fraud
under 18 U.S.C. § 371, 18 U.S.C. § 666, and 18 U.S.C.
§ 1848, based on allegations that your petitioner misreported overtime hours where the evidence was insufficient to reveal any federal, state, department, or unit
law, regulation, policy, or rule requiring anyone to
report federal traffic safety program grant overtime
hour-for-hour, and where the traffic safety unit's
historical practice and the department's written documents authorized traffic safety program grant overtime
and other types of overtime paid in four- and eight-hour
minimum blocks.

3. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
12(b)(3) requires a defendant to raise pretrial, or
show good cause, an "as applied" constitutional Fifth
Amendment due process vagueness challenge without
consideration of whether the challenge was then
reasonably available and could have been determined
without a trial on the merits.

Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) requires a defendant to raise pretrial an 'as applied' Fifth Amendment due process vagueness challenge without consideration of whether the challenge was reasonably available and could have been determined without trial on the merits, and whether the Fifth Amendment due process prohibition against vagueness required reversal of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal in a fraud prosecution where evidence was insufficient to reveal any applicable law or regulation