Question not identified

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | | ISSUE 1: Is §3583 (Supervised Release) as it stands after 3583(k) was found to be unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, and so, void in whole? Does Lifetime Supervised Release under §3583, using §3583(k), 5D1.2(b) & (d)(7), etc., to justify lifetime supervised release, violate the 8th Amendment's Cruel & Unusual Punishment Clause, when exceeding a statute's maximum punishment range? Does it then mean that 5D1.2, in part or in whole, along with other statutes that single out sex offenders as a group and proscribe punishment(s) in excess of the prison sentence and statute maximum, also violate the 8th Amendment. ; Does §3583 (supervised release), paired with a prison sentence or any other restriction(s), punishment(s) (disadvantiage(s)), violate the 5th Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause? . (See Issue 6 for additional concerns under §3583). ISSUE 2: Does Possession, and the lesser, included charge of Receiving, presented in the same indictment, violate the 5th Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause? Is Receiving an invalid, void, statute for prosecution because it cannot stand on its own, but only within the confines of Possession? . Is protection under 18 USC §§230(b)(2); and/or 230(c)(1); and/or 231(b)(2) valid for Computer Technicians (like Petitioner), and other computer services personnel, even when providing -these services in a non-standard environment? ISSUE 3: Can the Courts use a dismissed count to enhance Petitioner's sentence without violating the 6th Amendment and dismissing relative ‘ Due Process rights? If using a dismissed count is in violation of Constitutional Law, ; does Congress’ Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021, need to be retroactive, bypass the judge who used acquitted . conduct in raising a sentence, and be applied to all cases in which acquitted conduct was used to increase sentence, and not just cases that went to trial, in order to avoid Constitutional violations? ISSUE 4: Was a Restitution Order, which was not part of the Plea Agreement nor brought to light in the bias of a PreSentence Report (PSR) and which used antiquated information of alleged victim(s) who long ago had been fully compensated, that disregarded the accepted precedent of the DRI method for calculating this type of restitution, in violation of the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause and therefore invalid? Should the culpability of someone who was alleged to have viewed (possessed) images of such person(s), miscalculated because "actual : cause" by the rapist(s), producer(s), distributor(s), was never entered into the equation, be far less culpable than what has been previously accepted in error for many years now? | ISSUE 5: Is the Registry Cruel & Unusual Punishment under the 8th Amendment | : when utilizing the standard definitions of Punishment and Penalty as found at the bottom of page 15 of this Writ? As a punishment because it creates a disadvantage, does the Registry then violate the 5th Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause? Does the Registry violate the Nondelepation Doctrine regardless of . whether it in "inconvenient" as written or not? ISSUE 6: (As a subsection to Issue 1) Are the extraneous restrictions, punishments (disadvantages), imposed as part of §3583 (supervised release), which are placed upon the vast majority of sex offenders : in a blanketed manner, which are not required of any other offense | category, such as but not limited to, polygraph tests, computer | monitoring, forced counseling, etc., a violation of the 6th ! Amendment's Due Process Clause, the First Amendment, the 8th | Amendment's Cruel & Unusual Punishment Clause, and the Sth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause as expressed under ISSUE 1? | | Be