Did the Federal Government violate the 'Doctrines of Dual Sovergeinship' which exist between Federal and State jurisdictions for prosecuting an 'allegedly Pending' state criminal prosecution where the defendant has never been formally charged; arrested; arranged or provided 'Fair.Notice of alleged prosecution?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.) Did the Federal Government violate the "Doctrines of Dual Sovergeinship" which exist between Federal and State jurisdictions for prosecuting an "allegedly Pending" state criminal prosecution where the defendant has never been formally charged; arrested; arranged or provided "Fair.Notice of alleged prosecution? : 2.) Did the Government violate the Petitioners' Constitutional rights by proceeding with (SVR) Supervised release Violation proceedings against Petitioner for uncharged "alleged" new criminal conduct forming the basis of violation? 3.) Did the Government violate the Petitioners! rights by arresting _ him 26 days prior to indictment for uncharged criminal conduct falling under sovergein state juristion where tthe: Petitioner has never been formally charged for specified conduct? 4.) Did the Federal Magistrate violate the Petitioners’ rights by accepting testimony on behalf of adverse witness who failed to show when adverse witness was reported original affiant making claims against Petitioner of alleged new criminal conduct that was unsubstantiated by any formal warrants? i . 5.) Can a Supervised Release Violation for "Drug Testing" failure and "Excessive Use" of alcohol stand where there are no required "submitted urine tests" according to 18 U.S.C §3653 (e) standards and no "Established" alcohol testing protocols or testing policy to substantiate claims of "Excessiv Use"? 6.) Did the Petitioners' rights afforded under the constitution by not affording the petitioner a detention hearing on a new criminal indictment?: 7.) Did the United States District commit a Structural Error in failing to provide Petitioner formal hearings on any of his Pro-Se filed Motions allegeing Constitutional Violations, Ineffective Assistance; Lack of Jurisdiction and Government Misconduct until before conclusion of Sentencing without causing Government to respond at anytime? 8.)Did the U.S. Attorney's Office violate Petitioners' rights by withholding the Factual Basis of the Prosecution to facilitate the signing of Plea Agreement before providing Petitioner a copy ; at change of Plea Hearing? 9.) Did District Court abuse it's discretion by departing upward 6 levels via varient sentence against 18 U.S.C § 3553 considerations where ther are no mitigating factors; egregious offences and improper consideration of Petitioners' expired terms of imprisonment in sentence determination. to establish 95% sentence ?° ~ ii \\