Whether the current implementation of Supervised Release, (18 U.S.C. §3583), as a 'separate sentence' in addition to the 'sentence of imprisonment', is contrary to plain reading of statutory language, unconstitutional AND at the root of virtually all of the problems and questions re Supervised Release reserved by this Court 4 years ago in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ‘ F ‘. . 1. As a case of first impression, whether the current implementation of Te Supervised Release, (18 U.S.C. §3583), as a “separate sentence” in addition to the : : ) “sentence of imprisonment”, is contrary to plain reading of statutory language, unconstitutional AND at the root of virtually all of the problems and questions re _ Supervised Release reserved by this Court 4 years ago in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019)? Thus, can all of those issues be resolved by implementing Supervised Release as statute is written... ie. as a PART OF the sentence of imprisonment (where it operates as parole used to as a reduction) rather than as “ an additional sentence? , : ; 2. Whether Supervised Release (as currently implemented) can be imposed at ; oe all in any case in which statutory maximum is exceeded AND if it is, then in light of : this Court’s opinions in Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000), as . expounded on in Haymond (2019), and Apprendi and its progeny, since the sentence of imprisonment in this case exceeds statutory maximum, and any revocation sentence functions as an extension of the original sentence; can a Supervised Release revocation hearing even be conducted especially without being afforded the Sixth Amendment right to a jury that would determine whether violations have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ; Page ii