Whether law enforcement authorities, who use possible administrative delay in obtaining a warrant as justification for seizing a package containing suspected contraband, shipping it to another state, and then applying for a warrant, violate Fourth Amendment warrant requirements set forth in Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 U.S. 443, 469-471 (1971), United States v. Place 462 U.S. 696, 701-702 (1983), and Chapman v. United States 365 U.S. 610, 616 (1961).

1

18 U.S.C. § 922(0)(1) makes it is unlawful to transfer or possess a machine gun, except “with respect to” “a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof].]” 18 U.S.C. § 922(0)(2)(A).

Under the plain text of § 922(0)(2)(A), must a transfer of a machine gun to a government agent be “under the authority of’ the United States for the exemption to apply, or does the statute broadly exempt any “transfer to . . . the United States” because the “under the authority of’ limitation 1s attached only to the separate possession clause?

When a criminal defendant timely objects to a trial court’s evidentiary ruling, this Court and every court of appeals except the Ninth Circuit hold that the government bears the burden to show the error was harmless. By contrast, the Ninth Circuit holds that “a defendant must still prove that the error or defect was prejudicial.” United States v. Torres, 794 F.3d 10538, 1061 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). The question presented is:

Which party bears the burden to show prejudice when a defendant timely objects to a trial court’s erroneous evidentiary ruling.

prefix

1. Whether federal judges who have formally recused themselves under 28 U.S.C. § 455 may continue to exercise judicial power by issuing purported post-recusal rulings, and if such acts are void ab initio. | |

2. Whether an appellate court’s refusal or failure to vacate jurisdictionally void purported post-recusal acts—through denial of mandamus and prolonged inaction on | reconsideration—warrants issuance of supervisory mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

3. Whether prolonged inaction by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on an unopposed Motion for Reconsideration or En Banc Review, combined with denial of ancillary relief, constitutes constructive obstruction of justice, abuse of discretion, or violation of due process, and whether supervisory mandamus is appropriate to compel immediate resolution and prevent irreparable harm.

LIST OF PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. RELATED CASES

1. United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Case Nos. 2:23-cv- 06507-SJB-AYS and 2:24-cv-07247.

2. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Docket Nos. 25-1810 (and consolidated cases).

2