Whether the Appeals Court erroneously concluded Petitioner failed to state a claim, reasoning for want of a substantial question

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.) Whether the Appeals Court erroneously concluded Petitioner failed to state a clain, reasoning for want of a substantial guestion...he asserts that (Judgment) is UNDERMINED by, Rosales-— Mireles v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1897 (2018), and MolinaMartinez v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1338 (2016). 2.) Whether the District Court abused its discretion when the records of the sentencing transcripts show that Petitioner was not sentenced under Guidelines Section §2A1.1 in separate count; the court committed significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guideline range. Rosales-Mireles v. United States. 3.) Whether the final sentence decision of the sentencing transcript controls or the recommendation of the Pre-Sentence Report, its not consistant with Supreme Court remedial opinion in Gall v. United States, 169 L. Ed, 2d 445, (2007). 4.) Whether it was improper to increase Defendant's offense level by four levels under Guideline Section §2D1.5 to level 40. Thus, even though Amendments 505 and 782 reduce the maximum base offense level in Guideline Section §2D1.1 from 38 to 36. II .