Whether structural constitutional errors in a criminal prosecution that fundamentally undermine the integrity of the trial process require vacatur of a conviction and sentence when such errors have not been harmless and have materially impacted the defendant's substantive rights

II. Jurisdiction and Procedural Posture This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and Supreme Court Rule 11. Applicant sought a stay below pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8; that request was denied. App. I-2. Applicant’s appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 25-12697-C. No briefing schedule has issued. No final judgment has been entered. Sentencing is imminent. III. Standard for a Stay A stay pending certiorari is warranted where the applicant demonstrates: 1. a reasonable probability that certiorari will be granted; 2. a fair prospect that the applicant will prevail on the merits; 3. irreparable harm absent a stay; and 4, that the balance of equities and the public interest favor relief. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009). All four factors are satisfied here. IV. Likelihood of Certiorari and Success on the Merits The Petition presents multiple preserved structural constitutional questions of exceptional national importance, including: * constructive amendment of an indictment in violation of Stirone v. United States and Ex parte Bain; * removal of essential elements from the jury under United States v. Gaudin and Sullivan v. Louisiana; * an indictment obtained through materially inaccurate grand-jury information contrary to Mooney v. Holohan, Napue v. Illinois, and Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States; * suppression and rolling disclosure of evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and Kyles v. Whitley; and * systemic breakdowns in digital-authorship prosecutions documented by federal oversight bodies. These are pure questions of law, fully preserved, record-complete, and recurring nationwide. The Petition satisfies Supreme Court Rules 10(a), 10(c), and 11, establishing a reasonable probability of certiorari and a fair prospect of success on the merits. V. Irreparable Harm (Independent and Compounding) A. Sentencing Under a Structurally Tainted Prosecution Is Irreparable Once sentencing occurs, Applicant will suffer: * immediate incarceration exposure; * irreversible collateral legal consequences; * permanent reputational and professional harm; and * loss of meaningful appellate posture. Structural constitutional errors “infect the entire framework within which the trial proceeds” and are not cured by later review. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281 (1993). B. Independent Irreparable Harm: Automatic Loss of Professional Licensure Sentencing will trigger the automatic suspension or revocation of seventeen (17) active, state-issued professional construction and contracting licenses held by Applicant. That loss will: * permanently terminate Applicant’s ability to work in his trained profession; ¢ destroy existing business relationships, bonding, and insurance eligibility; ° foreclose future licensure reinstatement, which is discretionary and uncertain; and ° impose cascading regulatory and economic consequences that cannot be undone even if certiorari is later granted and the conviction vacated. Loss of professional licensure constitutes classic irreparable harm. No later appellate relief can restore licenses forfeited by operation of law following sentencing. This harm is concrete, non-speculative, independent of the merits, and alone warrants a stay. C. Independent Irreparable Harm: Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest