UNDER
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),V'
501.2(b) & (d)(7), etc., to justify lifetime supervised release,
violate the 8th Amendment 1s 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) (disadvantage(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?
Can the Courts use a dismissed count to enhance Petitioner's ISSUE 3:
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
tAiich 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 ttfrit?
As a

Question not identified