Whether the 'reason to believe' standard in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) requires a showing of probable cause that a suspect is within the premises at the time of the arrest?

question presented for review is: Whether the “reason to believe” standard in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) requires a showing of probable cause that a suspect is within the premises at the time of the arrest? i Issue II After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the federal sentencing guidelines became advisory, but this Court affirmed that the guidelines continued to play a central role in all federal sentencing proceedings. Errors in guideline calculations, however, are subject to harmless error review. The circuit courts disagree on how to apply harmless error review to a guidelines sentence when the sentencing court makes a blanket statement that it would have imposed the same sentence even if there was a guideline error in its calculations. The Eleventh and Eighth Circuits rely on such statements to avoid a merits review of guidelines errors. The Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth circuits, do not accept such a statement by the district court as obviating the need for a conventional harmless error review. Accordingly, the second question presented for review is: Whether errors in calculating the Sentencing Guidelines are rendered categorically harmless by a district court’s assertion that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any guideline error? ii Issue III This case also presents an important federal issue that has not been, but should be decided by this Court concerning the operation of the fraud loss guidelines, U.S.S.G. §2B1.1, in the aftermath of Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019). The third question presented for review is: Whether Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019) precludes deference to the fraud loss guideline commentary U.S.8.G. §2B1.1, commentary, n. 3(A) and 3(F)? ili INTERESTED