Whether there was an unconstitutional constructive amendment or prejudicial variance

Questions Presented Question 1 Whether there was an unconstitutional constructive amendment or prejudicial variance that tainted all counts, caused by the confluence of the government’s mtroduction of evidence and arguments that Zinnel committed bankruptcy fraud by hiding three property interests, one of which was Zinnel’s one and only WAMU personal checking account that was actually listed on his bankruptcy schedules, twice, with a correct balance of $250, that were not charged in the indictment transferred and/or concealed, m violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Supreme Court’s holdings in Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960). Question 2 ; Whether it is Constitutionally required in a bankruptcy fraud prosecution under 18 US.C. § 152(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 152(7), that a complete description of the property charged transferred and/or concealed in the indictment, must be in the jury mstructions as six other Circuits require and two previous Easter District of California bankruptcy fraud cases have done. : Question 3 Whether a judge-determined Sentencmg Guidelines Offense Level of 36 (188-235 months imprisonment), affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, is unconstitutional because the facts giving rise to 28 levels of the hotly contested sentencing enhancements, were not found by the jury or admitted to by the defendant, but were in fact used to increase Petitioner’s penalty because the judicial fact-finding at sentencing changed Petitioner's Guideline range from 0-6 months imprisonment found by the jury, to 188-235 months imprisonment, and the sentencing judge, as he was predisposed to do, treated the Guidelmes as mandatory and mechanically imposed a midrange within-Guideline sentence, in violation of Zinnel’s right under the Sixth Amendment. Page ii