Whether the Fed. R.. Crim. P. 15(a) Motion's right to amend as a-matter of course' a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 before a Responsive pleading is filed can be arbitrarily disregarded and denied?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether the Fed. R.. Crim. P. 15(a) Motion's right to amend as a-matter of course’ a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 before a . : : Responsive pleading is filed can be arbitrarily disregarded . ; and denied? SO : 7 2. Whether the district court erred when it refused to grant | ; an evidentiary hearing, even though Petitioner made a : substantial preliminary showing that the affiants knowingly . : and intentionally included false statements in their affidavits in violation of the Fourth Amendment ? ; 3. Whether Fair Notice was violated when evidence of the overt . : act/substantial step presented to the grand jury and charged in the indictment ("by hiring a person to kill") was not met at trial and a different theory of guilt was presented : to convict and sustain conviction? : . 4. Whether Fair Notice was violated when the government charged a defendant for violating a statute, based on the case agent's testimony to the grand jury that the government "recorded" ~ defendant's use of the phone, then added a "or caused to : ’ to be used" phrase to the statute at trial to obtain © : conviction due to another party's use of the phone? “ 5. Whether structural error Gccurred: whén the government used ; evidence, a letter, 'in the murder-for-hire offense asa . confession towards the kidnapping offense after it explicitly told the district court (months before trial) it would not do so at trial? : . 6. Whether a statute punishing the use of an instrumentality . of interstate commerce, a ‘cellular phone, during the . commission of a crime requires the government to prove the _° interstate capabilities of the cellular phone? p EAP tin ry epg : i” , :