Does Dimaya require all counts to be reviewed?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) DOES Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204(2018), when the Petitioner was on Direct appeal of his ; 18 U.S.C. $16(b) Unconstitutional and void argument under Vivas-Ceja, 808 F.3d.719 (7th Cir. 2015) and Baptiste, 841 F.3d 601 (3rd Cir. 2016), require all Counts 1-6, ; not merely Count 4. to be reviewed, and this Constitutional error must be corrected. and quickly, as. applied ab initio, Petitioner would be released since 2005 ? ; REMAND IS THUS THE PROPER REMEDY HEREIN. 2) DOES Davis, 2019 US App. LEXIS 1284, when Petitioner on Direct Appeal at the time,. arguing Cardena, 842 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2016), which both state that 18 U.S.G. §924,. (C)(3)(B) is Uncinstitutional and. void. apply, should 18 U.S.C. §16(b) Under Dimaya, to charges of 26 U.S.C. §5845, require Remand from Appeal for his Counts 5 & 6? ~REMAND IS THUS THE PROPER REMEDY HEREIN. 3) DOES Réhaif, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019) require cemand, as the Direct Appeal of a Lack of the essential element of ‘knowledge’ under 26 U.S.C. $58G9. ccupled with new evidence of Petitioner's ACTUAL INNOCENCE, that the Informant held ACTUAL POSSESSION of the Count 5 & 6 handgrenades after Petitioner left the United States » and had PLANTED THEM AS EVIDENCE WITH. FBI ASSISTANCE AND APPROVAL, require remand with fnstructions for hearing, as soon as Court may schedule it ? REMAND WITH INSTRUCTICNS FOR A FULL HEARING IS THE PROPER REMEDY HEREIN. 4) DOES Hull, 456 F.3d 133 (3rd Cir. 2006}, which states that ‘mere possession of a pipe bomb is net a crime ef viclence', {26 U.S.C. §5845], apply to Counts 5 & 6 for this Petitioner. as they determined Hull prior te conviction of Petitioner, also using 18 U.S.C. §16(b}, which is Unconstitutional and void per Baptiste and Dimaya now ? REMANE WITH INSTRUCTION FOR APPLICATION OF HULL IS THE PROPER REMEDY HEREIN. 5) DOES the fact that either under Dimaya, Baptiste and Vivas-Ceja, or Dimaya alone, . or Dimaya in combination with Davis and Cardena, which would vender all Counts 176 “Unconastitutional and void, thus Petitioner has been, applying the ab initio. holding, illegally detained since 2005, require immediate remand with instruction to celease ? ‘REMAND WITH INSTRUCTIONS IS THUS THE PROPER REMEDY HEREIN. 6) DOES F.R.Civ.P. Rule §36 require beth district and appeal courts to conclude all litigation upon Admission of Petitioner's ACTUAL INNOCENCE and £BI PLANTING AND THE FABRICATION OF THE EVIDENCE, and is that conclusive holding enhanced when a deemed unopposed ‘SIIPULALION OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF PETITIONER is also on Court Record ?? 7) ARE F.R.Civ.P. Rule §36 Admissions not binding, but merely discretionary evidence to district and appeal courts ? ; : . REMAND WITH INSTRUCTIONS ON RULE §36 IS THUS PROPER REMEDY HEREIN.