Whether the district court erred in sentencing Mr. Bentley

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MR. BENTLEY TO A STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF 120 MONTHS IN THAT SUCH SENTENCE WAS GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE STATUTORY PURPOSES OF SENTENCING, AND, _ WAS SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE. 2. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ITS UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THE SENTENCING OF MR. BENTLEY BY: [A] AS PRESERVED, FAILING TO PROVIDE TIMELY NOTICE THAT IT WAS CONTEMPLATING AN UPWARD DEPARTURE. [B] FAILING TO PREDICATE THE UPWARD DEPARTURE ON A GROUND FOR DEPARTURE, EITHER IN THE PRESENTENCE REPORT, OR, BY A PRE-HEARING SUBMISSION BY THE GOVERNMENT. [C] PREJUDICING MR. BENTLEY DUE TO A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN HIS SENTENCE, THUS NEGATING ALL OF HIS ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY EFFORTS, WHICH WAS AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION. 3... WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CLEARLY ERRED IN RELYING ON A RELEVANT CONDUCT ATTRIBUTION, REGARDING CONDUCT THAT WAS REMOTE, FACTUALLY UNRELIABLE, HAD CEASED, AND, WAS NEVER SHOWN TO BE CREDIBLY CONNECTED TO THE CHARGED OFFENSE(S) i