Whether Smadi in this Case would suffer a manifest injustice and an extreme hardship by serving several extra years in prison

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED : 1). Whether Smadi in this Case would suffer a manifest injustice and an , extreme hardship by serving several extra years in prison absent such relief in light of the recent Supreme Court's Rulings in " Molina-Martinez (2016), Rosales-Mireles (2018), Alleyne (2013), and Peugh (2013). ; : 2). Whether Smadi presented extraordinary circumstances absent relief ; . would cause prejudice and injustice undermining the public confidence : in the judicial process, when Smadi was misinformed and sentenced under incorrect and higher guideline in violation of Rule 11 Plea. 3). Whether the Court Must interven to correct a-clear plain error and prevent manifest: injustice to the party, as in Smadi extraordinary . . circumstances in here,-which is supported by most of the Supreme , ‘Court rulings in the past few years, including its recent findings in "Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S (2017)! “Martinez v. Ryan"566 U.S, and “Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S for Rule 60(b). : ; 4). Whether the Court abused its discretion, Since Smadi has no other way to correct a manifest injustice and clear error in his case. : 5). Whether in light of Molina-Martinez (2016) Supreme Court's. ruling . Smadi|. sentence: under an incorrect & higher guideline with about a (20)levels of enhancement violated his Due Prcoess, Equal Protection, : Right to an Effective Counsel, Rule 11, 18 USC 3553a Sentencing factors and rendered his plea unknowing & unintelligent, when He received a . higher sentence without any benefit from the downward departures he was granted for Mitigation, Age, Mnetal. Health, Lack of Capability, ,and accepting of responsiblty. ‘This caused a prejudice & effected substantive rights when Smadi received about an. extra.l0 years in sentence. . 6) Whether Smadi is innocent of the incorrect & higher sentencing guideline enhancement because Smadi pled guilty to the explosive materials of the alleged destructive device that was made by government agents, and not to any biological, nuclear, radiation, or chemical weapons, but fire , materials of an explosive device supllied by the government own agents, This violated Smadi rights and all the previous supreme court rulings. -ji