Whether the sentence was imposed under U.S.S.G. §201.1(c)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | , 1) WHETHER THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED UNDER U.S.S.G. §201.1(c) | TO ESTABLISH THE BASE OFFENSE, THE GUIDELINES ARE IN REAL | SENSE. THE BASIC FOR THE SENTENCE TO APPLY THE AMENDMENT 782 | ACCORD PEUGH V. U.S., 133 S.CT 2072 (2013) and MOLINA: { MARTINEZ V. U.S., 136 S.CT 1338 (2016) ? rs 2) WHETHER THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED UNDER 21 U.S.C. §848(a) AND (b)., THE SENTENCE IS AMBIGUOUS AND THE RULE OF LENITY 4 REQUIRES THAT THE AMBIGUITY SHOULD BE RESOLVER IN PETITIOWER"S FAVOR ACCORD U.S. V. DAVIS, 139 S.CT 2319 (2019) ? 3) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S FAILURE TO FINALICE A PRELIMINARY, AND FINAL ORDERS OF FORFEITURE AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THE JUDGMENT, ALLOW THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT'S : INTERVENING DECISIONS IN HONEYCUTT V..U.S., 137 S.CT 1626 . (2017) AND NELSON V. COLORADO, 137 s.ct 1249 (2017) ? | 4) WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT THE : . DISTRICT COURT TO CONFORM WITH FED.R.CRIM.P. 32.2(b)(4)(B) : BY AMENDING THE 1996 JUDGMENT WHERE THE FED.R.CRIM.P. 32.2 WAS AMENDED SUBSTANTIALLY IN 2009 ? | -i | | : t .