Did the courts violate the petitioner's constitutional rights by denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence despite errors, government concessions, and precedent?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Did both the District Court and SixthCircuit Court of . Appeals violate Petitioner's constitutional rights by denying his motion to Vacate, Set aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. $2255 when the record clearly established the errors in question, the government conceded to errors and Circuit precedence, as well as Supreme Court precedence established that the issues raised were in fact errors of constitutional magnitude. Prior panels reversed convictions for the same errors under the plain error analysis and ineffective assistance of counsel claim. , . Where the jury instructions did not tract the language of the indictment, causing defendant to be convicted of a non« existant crime, by cross-matching the two distinct elements under which 924(c) criminalize, constructively amending the indictment : by incorporating "brandishing" in the jury instructiotis, yet same was not charged by. grand jury and included in indictment. Causing defendant to suffer under a substantively and procedurally unreasonable sentence that was beyond the Court's jurisdiction to impose. Last, and just as importantly, where the Court instructed the jury on a non-qualifying predicate. The charge to the jury was that the [5] §924(c) counts were in fact in relation to themselves. ; i]