Whether to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand for reconsideration in light of Concepcion V. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Whether to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand for reconsideration in light of Concepcion V. United States, 142 : . S. Ct. 2389 (2022)? : PRO SE STATEMENT : . Under the authority of the Supremacy and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines V. Kérner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Erickson V. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), pro-se litigant's: . ; filings are "to be liberally construed" and "must be held to less stringent standards then pleadings from well trained BAR registrees (attorneys)," as to do substantial justice. Id. . . ; , ‘RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In Augaust of 2014, Mr. Wilford was sentenced in U.S. District Court of Maryland to 340 months of imprisonment arid 10 years of supervised release, after being made to stand jury trial on a single charge of violating 21 U.S.C. §846. Dist. Ct. ECF-254; BCF-369 Dist. Md.). ; ) White serving his prison sentence, Mr. Wilford learned that the Government's 7 Sentencing Memorandum incorrectly states "8 kilograms" of cocaine were "Seiuéed from" his residence located at 1500 Cliftview avenue (ECF-274 at p. 10); the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) contains the incorrect information that "8 kilograms" of cocaine being , "found" at Wilford'sresidence (ECF-273 at p. 7 par. 28) and; a Declaration of Special Agent Mark Lester which falsely declares that agents "seized approximately eight (8) kilograms of cocaine at a residence owned by Wilford" (ECF-369 p.46; ECF-650 EX. 1," 9), which were relied upon by the court for sentencing him. ECF-369 , . , -2. | i .