Does federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) have an unconstitutionally vague residual clause?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) have an unconstitutionally vague residual clause, and has the government, District Court, or the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals answered this issue? : , 2. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to request a Suppression Hearing regarding the numerous Fourth Amendment violations in the petitioner's case? 3. Was the Fourth Amendment violated when agents used 5% year old fraudulent "stale" information.in order to obtain a search warrant? 4. Was the Fourth Amendment violated when agents seized numerous items of property that was not criminal/illegal, (i.e. Adult Lingerie), and were not listed as items to seize, and then later claim that they were seeking the items but admit that it was not listed on the warrant? 5. Was it a Fourth Amendment violation for agents to demand the petitioner's cellular phone that was on his person when he was not under arrest? 6. Was the search warrant overboard, and did agents exceed the scope of the warrant to seek evidence of additional possible unrelated crimes of innocent : conversations when the purpose of the initial. search proved to be unfounded? 7. Were there violations of the Fourth Amendment when the petitioner's vehicle was unlawfully seized by demanding the vehicle keys from the petitioner's son, after the petitioner released custody of the vehicle to his son? 8. Were there violations of the Fourth Amendment when agents then drove the petitioner's vehicle from it properly and legally parked spot, moving it to within the agents complex and storing the vehicle in an unauthorized maintenance garage, and then proceeding to search the vehicle under a false : pretense of an inventory search, without a search warrant, in order to \s es so... ecure and search his cellular. phone for evidence. as . ; 9. Did agents violate the petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights when they refused to release the vehicle to a licensed drive, did not obtain a search warrant for 67% hours later, and would hold the petitioner's vehicle for 11 days? 10. Did federal agents present false information in order to obtain a search warrant from the magistrate judge, and was all this not "FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE"? i 11. Was there a violation of the Fifth and/or Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of DUE PROCESS by the multiple accounts of prosecutorial misconduct arid-deception when the government filed numerous documents with the Courts ‘that contained absolutely false information and presenting false evidence : at the petitioner's trial? 12. Was the introduction of lingerie as evidence, when it had nothing to do with the petitioner's criminal trial cause him prejudice and resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial? 13. Was the introduction of consenting adult women photographed in the lingerie as.evidence a violation of the petitioner's and the women being photographed First Amendment rights? 14. Was there prosecutorial misconduct concerning the petitioner's cellular phone : . transcripts that had the following: .. a) Said tarnscripts contained, at minimum, 1169 provable and obvious errors; b) Said transcripts contained, at least 23 falsely added text which were titled "deleted"; c) Said transcripts showed text allegedly sent to the petitioner from his accuser with the date of 1970, when the petitioner was ONLY 8 years old; his accuser and:her parents had not even been born yet; iPhones such as that of the petitioner DID NOT EXIST; and the means of communication such as texting DID NOT EXIST; . d) Said transcripts were missing an entire page from the transcripts which supported the petitioner's actual innocence; and e) Said transcripts consist of conversations between the petitioner and adult friends but were included by the government to be between the petitioner and his accuser. 15. Is a constitutional violation to purposely alter evidence and also make it oe so otterly confusing that the jury had to stop their deliberations and =” request that