Whether a United States Court of Appeals violates due process by refusing to rule on an unopposed mandamus petition for over eight months, thereby nullifying appellate review

1. Whether a United States Court of Appeals violates the Due Process Clause and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), by refusing for over eight months to rule on an unopposed petition for a writ of mandamus —a petition whose foundational allegations of constitutional violations, judicial conflicts, and a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction have never been denied by any respondent —thereby nullifying the right to appellate review and compelling this Court's extraordinary intervention to cure a total breakdown of judicial process. 2. Whether the Third Circuit's deliberate refusal to apply or even acknowledge controlling Supreme Court precedent —Sprint v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. '269 (2008) —which establishes that the underlying conduct is not a crime, constitutes judicial bias and misconduct so severe as to warrant this Court's supervisory mandamus to vacate a conviction void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 3. Whether a federal court's persistent enforcement of criminal convictions and civil restraints after the legal basis for its jurisdiction has been conclusively negated by binding law violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process and requires immediate corrective action by this Court. 4. Whether this Court will uphold its duty to apply the law and correct a fundamental miscarriage of justice —by ordering the release of an individual whose continued imprisonment rests on proceedings irreparably tainted by documented, unrefuted structural violations, including the denial of due process, undisclosed conflicts, failure to apply controlling law, and judicial misconduct that, if acknowledged, necessarily implicates the integrity of the lower courts. 1