Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in dismissing claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and infringing on due process rights through procedural technicalities

A. Whether certiorari should be granted to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirming the District Court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which conflicts with established precedent that a District Court must determine if a claim is insubstantial or without merit before dismissing it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, particularly when the claims involve constitutional rights and clear statutory interpretation disputes. B. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred by affirming the dismissal of the Petitioner's complaint with prejudice as a "shotgun pleading,” thereby infringing upon the Petitioner’s due process right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard, especially where the District Court previously provided guidance that was unclear or contradictory. Cc. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment conflicts with principles of due process by affirming a decision that allowed a federal agency to convert civil penalties (fines) into potential criminal charges (imprisonment up to 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 1001) based on misrepresentations in an application, where such a process lacks the requisite safeguards for criminal actions and creates an issue of national significance regarding the interaction between agency civil certification processes and federal criminal law. 1 D. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment should be reversed because it failed to address the applicability of 41 U.S.C. § 4712 (Contractor Employee Protection) to the Petitioner, which, if applicable, would have established a clear statutory basis for jurisdiction over the claims and resolved the ambiguity in the District Court’s finding of a ’shotgun pleading. ii