Does this Court's reasoning in Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), limiting joint and several forfeiture liability to what a defendant obtained, apply to this forfeiture order under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Question I. Does this Court’s reasoning of Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), limiting joint and several forfeiture liability to what a defendant obtained, also apply to this forfeiture order under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which held Sexton liable for nearly the entire $2.5 million loss although, as most, he obtained $624,000. There is a Circuit Split on this issue as the 3 and 11" Circuits found Honeycutt applies but the 6" Circuit said it does not. Question II — Can costs not permitted by statute and not incurred as part of a victim bank’s participation in a government investigation be ordered as restitution, contrary to this Court’s holding in Lagos v. United States, --U.S. ---, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018)? This circuit ruling conflicts with recent Supreme Court precedent. Question III Was the use of a dismissed California charge as a prior conviction and to place Sexton under a criminal justice sentence as to increase his algorithmic Criminal History from a I to a IIL, and thus increase his algorithmic, rule-based Sentencing Range, a violation of the sentencing guidelines, our principles of individualized justice, and Due Process of Law? This circuit ruling on increasing criminal history based on a dismissed offense violates Due Process of law under the Fifth Amendment 2 LIST OF ALL