Were Mr. Garcia's Due Process Rights violated under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Were Mr. Garcia Due Process Rights violated under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment when he was: A.) Incorrectly sentenced under U.S.S.G. 4B1-2(c) Term used in section 4B1.1 Career Offender. B.) Double counting of the instant offense of aiding and abetting was an abuse of discretion, failure to correct plain U.S.S.G. error that affected Mr. Garcia's substantial rights seriously affected the fair, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceesings C.) The P.S.I. in plain error attribute aiding and abetting as a previous prior conviction U.S.S.G. 4A1.1 incorrectly. SE United States vs. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 United States vs. Rosales-Mireles, 585 U.S. 138 United States vs. Peugh, 569 U.S. 537 United States vs. Molina-Martinez 578 U.S. 136 Were Mr. Garcia Due Proces Rights violated under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, when he was: A.) Determined by the District Court that Mr. Garcia qualified as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4Bi-1(a) because he had one prior conviction for "crime of violence" Arkansas Code § ; 5-2-403 and 5-13-202. Accomplice to second degree battery. Determining the statute of conviction and its Elements. @ B.) Government abuse its discretion when they applied modified i. categorical approach and use the "Shepard documents" material. C) surrounding his 2008 conviction are inconclusive. C.) Compared the elements of the statute of conviction to the definition. United States vs. Shepard, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) United States vs. Taylor, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) United States vs. Mathis, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) United States vs. Descamps, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) United States vs. McMillan, 863 F.3d 1053, 1057 (8yh Cir. 2017) Were Mr. Garcia's Due Process Rights violated under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when he was: O A.) Denied motion for Retest when defense of counsel for Mr. Garcia a fail to give reasonable explanation why a retest was needed. B.) The D.E.A. Chemical Analysis Report on the exhibit report was inaccurate. The laboratory accepted the evidence on 5/24/2016 ; and it shows a gross weight 87-2g which is incorrectly with the siezed in relation to Mr. Garcia in count three indicates a gross weight of 55.453 g C.) Use of actual methamphetamine Guideline the court should have use the methamphetamine mixture guidelines rather than actual in determining his sentencing range that there is no longer an empirical ratio for actual (or ice) methamphetamine versus mixture of methamphetamine. C a United States vs. Hayes, 948 F.Supp 3d 969 (N.D. Iowa) ii. United States vs. Nawanna, 321 F.Supp 3d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2018) (o United States vs. Harry, 313 F.Supp 969 (N.D. Iowa 2018) United States vs. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1198 (1st Cir 1993) United States vs. Ladd, 885 F.2d 954, 956 (1st Cit. 1998) O © iii. 2