Does the 'separate sovereigns' doctrine permit multiple punishments that are exempted from the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment or ex post facto changes to the punishment imposed?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The U.S. Supreme Court's recent affirmation of the "separate sovereigns" . doctrine in Gamble v. U.S., U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1960 (2019), raises a number of questions in the Petitioner's case as to the boundaries of that doctrine. ee #1. Does the "separate sovereigns" doctrine permit multiple punishments that are exempted from the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment or ex post facto changes to the punishment imposed? Specifically, , . #2. Where the “separate sovereigns" doctrine permitted the Petitioner's two separate convictions, in the Federal Court and then in the State Court, does the 8th Amendment's prohibition of cruel and. unusual punishment, applying “through the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Privileges and Immunities clauses require concurrent rather than consecutive, cumulative,. double punishment?*. #3. Where the "separate sovereigns" doctrine permitted the Petitioner's two separate convictions, in the Federal Court and then in the State Court, does the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause prohibit the State's . ex post facto changes to the second, separate, and consecutive sentences?