Whether a court of appeals violates due process by declining to recall a mandate where a petitioner demonstrates conviction of a non-existent offense and the court's judgment relied on a theory not authorized by statute or federal precedent

No question identified. : 1. Whether a court of appeals violatesdue process by declining to recall a mandate where a petitioner demonstrates that he was convicted of a non-existent offense, specifically, "attempting to aid and abet" and the court's judgement relied oh’a theory not authorized by statute or federal precedent. 2. Whether the omission of jury instructions oh aiding and abetting when the government's entire theory of liability rested on that construct requires a court to conduct a. harmless-error analysis under Neder v. United States, and’whether the failure to. do so. renders subsequent appellate arid postconviction review 'fundamentally flawed. 3. Whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to notice is violated where the indictment fails to specify the subsection of 18 U.S.C. § 2 — § 2(a) or § 2(b) — under which he is charged, particularly where that statutory ambiguity becomes dispositive in postconviction review. 4. Whether the appellate court's denial of a motion to recall the mandate without addressing substantial, intervening, and unadjudicated arguments that concern the legality and constitutionality of a conviction conflicts with this Court's holdings that appellate courts have a continuing duty to prevent miscarriages of justice.