DOES THE UNDEFINED ELEMENT "SCHEME TO DEFRAUD"
IN 18 U.S.C. § 1343 SATISFY FIFTH AMENDMENT
DUE PROCESS NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN LIGHT OF
THIS COURT'S DECISION IN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION et. al. v_ FOX TELEVISION STATIONS
et al., 567 U.S. 239, 132 S.Ct. 2307, 183
L.Ed.2d 234 (2012); SKILLING v UNITED STATES,
561 U.S. , 130 S.Ct. , 177 L.Ed.2da 619 .
(2010); JOHNSON v UNITED STATES, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015); AND WELCH v UNITED STATES, 136
S.Ct. 1257 (2016)?

IN LIGHT OF GALL v_ UNITED STATES, 552 U.S.
38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)
. DID THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEDURALLY ERR BY
NOT FINDING AN AMOUNT OF LOSS TO ESTABLISH
A QUANTIFIABLE LOSS AMOUNT FOR SENTENCING
GUIDELINE AND RESTITUTION PURPOSES?

DOES THE DISTRICT COURT'S BROAD INSTRUCTION
REGARDING REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH EXCLUDES
THE CONCEPTS OF "POSITIVE CERTAINTY," ""ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY CONVINCED," AND "BY
ITS NATURE IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO A MATHEMA.TICAL CERTAINTY" LESSEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF
ON THE GOVERNMENT?

IN LIGHT OF MCCOY v LOUISIANA, 584 U.S.
(2018 No. 16-8255) WAS PETITIONER'S SIXTH
AMENDMENT AUTONOMY RIGHT VIOLATED BY COUNSEL'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND COUNSEL'S REFUSAL TO PRESENT
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL?

Does the undefined element 'scheme to defraud' in 18 U.S.C. § 1343 satisfy Fifth Amendment due process notice requirements?