Does the U.S. Probation Department have authority to apply enhancements for conduct alleged to have happened outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and can it apply double enhancements on allegations not proven to be facts?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Probation Department assessed the Movant with two separate enhancements under USSG 3C1.1 and 3C1.2 for obstruction of justice and Reckless Endangerment for incident alleged to have taken place outside the jurisdiction of the United States, in a Cancun Airport inyMéxico. 4 4 : 47 40 The district Judge sentenced the Movant to a 72 month above guidéhkines sentence citing incidents that allegedly occurred in Mexico without a determination of guilt by a jury or admission by . the defendant in open gourt, or Stating” "facts" upon, which could» be relied on to find guilt. . The defendant (Movant ) appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the District Court's decision was affirmed. Then : Appelant':s appeal counsel submitted a motion for the United States Supreme Court on Certiorari, in which certiorari was granted on . . June.:25,° 2018 and the Supreme Court” remanded toithe 5th Circuit ” and vacated the judgment in light of Rosales-Mireles. The 5th Circuit reaffirmed 11-15-18 insisting that there was no: plain error. (1) Does the U.S. Probation Department have authority to apply enhancements for conduct alleged to have happened outside the jurisdiction of the United States. And if SO, can it apply double enhancements on allegations not proven to be facts. (2) Does the District Court have jurisdiction to punish Movant by applying 2 Separate enhancements for unproven conduct that allegedly occurred in Mexico, before the Movant was in U.S. custody or in U.S. territory, and if so, did the district court err in imposing an 72 month above the guidelines sentence in an upward variance I resulting from the same 2 enhancements without a finding of fact by a jury or admission by the defendant? Or in violation of the USSG § 3C1.2 comment (N.1). (3) Did the District Court err in ordering the :sentence to run consecutive to the pending state charges in the Statement of Reasons a where this command appears neither in the gral pronouncement of the a” sentence nor the written judgment? (4) Did thé District Court err in failing to give Movant fair notice of possible departure and for the reasons listed in the departure? . “ on wo eS : bal ra ™ 4 “ oa (5) Did the District Court err when it. abused its discretion and ' “failed to give any weight to defendant's mental health history in constdering the 3553(a) factors and the need for the rehabilitation and mental health treatment? (6) Were trial counsel Hermesmeyer ineffective for not raising proper objectiong or submitting.Movant's MHMR wecords for considerwo ation or requesting more time to submit the evidence? And appeal counsel Joel Page for refusing to cite Hermesmeyer's deliberate ; . indifference? Or improperly advising the Movant? TT .