Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a party to seek an indicative ruling from the district court while an appeal is pending. While the indicative ruling litigation is taking place at the district court, the Court of Appeals does not lose jurisdiction. The question presented is whether Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows for the filing of an Amended Notice of Appeal or does Rule 4 require the filing of a new notice of appeal for every indicative ruling, given that the Court of Appeals never lost its jurisdiction over the case.

A conspiracy to commit murder for hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 ends with the death of the victim. At trial in this case, however, the District Court held that the Section 1958 conspiracy to commit murder for hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 is extended until all opportunities to get paid are finished. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to review that erroneous legal determination, which allowed the government to present evidence relating to post murder conduct as if it was part of the conspiracy, a conspiracy which ended with death of the victim.

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a fair trial. In this case, the district court instructed the jury not once, but twice at the trial held in 2018 that it had found the government's cooperator Alex "El Loco" Pabón competent during the change of plea hearing held in 2008. Such judicial notice impermissibly vouched for Pabón's credibility and destroyed petitioner Marcia Vazquez's right to a fair trial in violation of her Sixth Amendment

Whether Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows for an Amended Notice of Appeal or requires a new notice of appeal for every indicative ruling when the Court of Appeals maintains continuous jurisdiction