Question not identified.

No question identified. : QUESTI ONS PRESENTED FOR REVI EW I. SHOULD THIS COURT RECONSIDER ITS DECISION IN MANRIQUE V. UNITED STATES, 581 U.S. 116, 122–23 (2017), HOLDING THAT A DISTRI CT COURT' S INITIAL JUDGMENT AND ITS SUBSEQUENT RESTI TUTI ON ORDER CONSTI TUTE SEPARATE JUDGMENTS AND A DEFENDANT’S NOTI CE OF APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DOES NOT FUNCTI ON AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE RESTI TUTI ON ORDER ? II.DID THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINLY AND REVERSIBLY ERR WHEN IT ORDERED MR. HOWARD TO PAY RESTITUTION ? ii