Whether a conviction for aggravated identity theft can stand when the alleged identity use was merely incidental in progress notes without fraudulent intent

l. DUBIN MISAPPLICATION Whether Petitioner ’s conviction for aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A can stand where, contrary to Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023), the alleged use of identity was merely incidental in progress notes by a non-credentialed employee without billing authority, rather than the means of executing fraud. n. INDICTMENT DEFECTS Whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when a defendant is prosecuted on an indictment that omitted essential elements, mischaracterized Petitioner ’s role by alleging he “provided counseling services ” and falsely attributing licensure and billing authority, and then proceeded to trial on an “Amended Indictment ” never returned by a grand jury, never signed by a foreperson, and never subject to arraignment. m. CONSTRUCTIVE DENIAL OF COUNSEL Whether structural error requiring automatic reversal occurs where (1) trial counsel deprived Petitioner of core protections by executing waivers without consent, permitting conviction on an unretumed and unarraigned indictment, and failing to present exculpatory audit-trail evidence; and (2) the appellate process compounded those errors when first appellate counsel omitted constitutional claims, successor counsel mischaracterized Petitioner ’s pro se submissions as “non-meritorious, ” refused to file a merits or Anders brief, and the Court of Appeals excluded Petitioner ’s filings, leaving the appeal without adversarial testing in violation of the Sixth Amendment. IV. EQUAL PROTECTION/O ’LEAR DISPARITY Whether the Fifth Amendment ’s equal-protection guarantee is violated when the same district and appellate court, rejected as implausible that a white credentialed subordinate masterminded fraud in United States v. O’Lear, 93 F.4th 398 (6th Cir 2024), but affirmed Petitioner ’s conviction as a Black, unlicensed subordinate legally barred from billing.