Whether the Honorable Judge Brian C. Wimes and the U.S. Attorney James Bohling utilized two inapplicable statutory enhancements enacted after the offense date in calculating the base offense level, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause and due process rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , I. WHETHER THE HONORABLE JUDGE BRIAN C. WIMES AND THE U.S. , ATTORNEY JAMES BOHLING UTILIZE TWO-INAPPLICABLE STATUTORY ENHANCEMENTS ENACTED BY THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION AFTER THE OFFENSE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1988. AMENDMENTS #66 AND #139 IN CALCULATION OF THE BASE OFFENSE USED TO DENY THE APPELLANT'S 782 MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS? 1. WHETHER -THE HONORABLE BRIAN-C.-WIMES. AND-U.S. ATTORNEY -JAMES—___. BOHLING DISREGARD OR OVERSIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT AND APPEALS COURTS PRECEDENTS FOR EX POST FACT CLAUSE (Plain Errors) AND APPELLANT'S RIGHTS TO HAVE THESE ERRORS CORRECTED CAUSED KELTON TO CONTINUE TO BE IMPRISONED UNDER AN INFIRMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL SENTENCE? III. WHETHER THE HONORABLE BRIAN C. WIMES AND U.S. ATTORNEY JAMES BOHLING COMMIT A VIOLATION.OF FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 52(b)'S PLAIN ERROR RULE WHICH WAS RAISED BY APPELLANT IN HIS MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE. THAT BOTH OFFICERS OF THE HONORABLE COURT FAILED TO REVIEW OR CORRECT. BUT UTILIZED IT TO | DENY APPELLANT'S 782 AMENDMENT MOTION. WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THE WRONG SENTENCING MANUAL WAS USED TO PREPARE THE P.S.R.? EV. WHESHER THE HONORABLE BRIAN C. WIMES AND U.S. ATTORNEY JAMES BOHLING UTILIZE BASE OFFENSE 42 INSTEAD OF 32 AS THE STARTING . POINT IN DOING THE CALCULATION OF TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL FOR THE IMPOSITION OF GUIDELINE RANGE FOR °782 AMENDMENT WHICH THE COURT DENIED STATING THE GUIDELINE RANGE REMAINED 360 LIFE? _ 1 5 . : .