I.
Because Urbina-Rodrigue z was never actually sentenced to
serve a term of imprisonment that exceeds one year, by the State
of Missouri's court based on criminal history. Did the Eighth Circuit's panel correctly determine it was proper for the district court to consider his prior offenses a felony for
purpose of 18 U.S.C. §§922 (g)(l); 924(a)(2) enhanced sentence?
Specifically, Count 3 charged that he possessed the firearm after having been previously convicted of an offense punishable
by a sentence more than one year term of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). Id. (Doc.l).

II.
Based upon pro se Petitioner's judgment, the evidence in the
record is silent regarding the actually term of imprisonment
served by the Petitioner. Is the Panel decision contrary to this
Court's precedent cases decision(s): Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder ,
130 S.Ct. 2277 (2010); Haltiwanger v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 81
(2010); Rehaif v. United States , 139 S.Ct. 2191 "(2019)? And or [Is] the district court's judgment in conflict and contrary to
the Eighth Circuit's precedent cases decision(s) in: United
States v. McDonald , 826 F.3d 1066, 1072 (8th Cir. 2016); Unite!
States v. Warren , 951 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir. 2020).

III.
Should Second Amendment Rights be advanced to permit ex-
convicted-felon to-.possess firearm for _['personal protection']
of their home in the inter-city, or their home on their farm, or their home on the ranch?

whether-prior-offenses-constitute-felony-for-enhanced-sentence