Whether the $228,304 restitution order infringes upon Marcus Taylor's constitutional rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I, Whether the $228,304 restitution order infringes upon Marcus Taylors constitutional rights. And sets a dangerous precedent by allowing for the return of drug proceeds to individuals who cooperated with the government and who were charged with drug trafficking offenses, despite their ultimate guilt or innocence. II. Whether the restitution order imposed on Mr. Taylor, based on the district court's finding that the recipients of the restitution were “victims” under 18 U.S.C. Section 3663A(a) (2), is warranted and supported when alleged stolen funds were admitted to be drug proceeds by the recipients, Shawn Whiting and Oreese Stevenson. III. Whether the district court erred in‘ lits application of restitution statues by failing to provide clear rules or guidelines for resolving disputes regarding the nature and source of the stolen funds, specifically when the government failed to prove that the funds in question were “untainted” or when federal prosecutors remained silent on the large amounts of kilograms seized from home of Whiting and Stevenson within the superseding indictment? IV. Whether the districts court’s restitution order violates Mr. Taylor's constitutional rights and due process rights, considering that the recipient of restitution, Oreese Stevenson, admitted during trial to having cocaine in his home and, as Trial testimony (Doc. 468 at 49-58, trial testimony), and further admitted to possessing approximately 8 kilograms of Cocaine along with United States Currency within his home. V. Whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in affirming the restitution order without considering the discrepancy between Mr. Taylor's contention that all alleged funds, property and drugs were drug proceeds, and Mr. Whiting assertion that some of the cash was lawfully earned from his job as a painter. 1