Whether a federal court of appeals may continue adjudicating the merits of a criminal appeal without first verifying subject-matter jurisdiction when clear evidence of a jurisdictional defect exists

1. Whether a federal court of appeals may continue adjudicating the merits of a criminal appeal without first verifying, sua sponte , the existence of sub ject-matter jurisdiction, when the record demonstrates clear and convincing evidence of a jurisdictional defect. 2. Whether a court of appeals abdicates its constitutional and mandatory duty when it refuses to entertain or independently examine a jurisdictional challenge, despite settled precedent that subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. 3. Whether the federal government may, by motion, interfere with or rest rict a court of appeals' independent obligation to determine jurisdiction, con trary to binding Supreme Court precedent. 4. Whether the federal prosecution of a crime occurring wholly within Puerto Rico, without affecting interstate or foereign commerce, constitutes an usurpation of prosecutorial authority reserved to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 3231 and the constitutional frame work established from 1952 onward. 5. Whether a writ of mandamus is the only adequate and appropriate remedy when both the district court and the court of appeals refuse to verify subject matter jurisdiction, thereby creating a structural constitutional error that violates due process. i