1. Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act of February 12, 1925, ch. 213, § 9, 43 Stat. 883, the clerk and judge of a United States District Court have a mandatory, ministerial duty to confirm an unvacated arbitration award and lack discretion to refuse docketing or to demand a civil-action fee contrary to that statute.

2. Whether the refusal of federal judicial officers to perform a ministerial duty imposed by Congress under the Federal Arbitration Act, 43 Stat. 883-885, constitutes an ultra vires act and deprivation of rights under color of law within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, ch. 31, § 2, 14 Stat. 27; the Enforcement Act of 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. 140, 144-145; and the Act of 1871, ch. 22, 17 Stat. 13; and whether such refusal, when occurring within a judicial structure impacted by recurring litigation and financial relationships with Title IV-D child-support agencies funded under Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, and Pub. L. 105-200, 112 Stat. 658, violates the constitutional guarantee of due process by creating a structural probability of bias contrary to Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972), and Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).

3. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after converting Petitioner's prior mandamus petition into a standard appeal without notice or consent, and thereafter entering an unexplained order on October 31, 2025, denying reinstatement and closing the case to further filings, should be directed to vacate that conversion, explain its legal basis, and transmit the complete record to this Court for review under the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 81) and of the Rules of this Court.

4. Whether this Court should compel the District Court of Arizona to confirm Petitioner's arbitration award forthwith and direct that the same confirmation procedure govern any related or future awards to prevent repetition of obstruction and deprivation of rights.

Whether federal judicial officers have a mandatory duty to confirm an unvacated arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act and whether their refusal constitutes an ultra vires act