Did the lower court violate due-process and/or equal-protection by failing to recognize Hayward's privacy-possessory-interest and standing to challenge the seizure

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 1) DID THE LOWER COURT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS AND/OR EQUAL PROTECTION BY FAILING BY FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT HAYWARD HAD A PRIVACY POSSESSORY INTEREST IN THE SEIZED PROPERTY THEREBY SUPPORTING STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE SEIZURE OF THE DUFFEL BAG PURSUANT TO PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED IN NNITED STATES V. PLACE, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) IN CONJUNCTION WITH TEXAS V. BROWN, 462 U.S. 730 (1983)? 2) DID THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATE DUE PROCESS WHEN IT TOTALLY FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE SQUARELY BEFORE IT THAT THE OFFENSE LEVEL DETERMINED PURSUANT TO THE GUIDELINES WAS IMPROPERLY CALCULATED IN VIOLATION OF GALL V. UNITED STATES, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED? ) i IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHRISTIAN HAYWARD Petitioner ; Vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES The petitioner, Christian Hayward, pro se, certifies that the following listed parties have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Justices of this Court may evaluate possible disqualifications or recusals. ‘GHRISTIAN HAYWARD --whom is pro se, under the standards of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 30 L.Ed.2d 652, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972), and is the petitioner in the above entitled case and is presently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Victorville Medium #1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA --by and through, U.S. Attorneys Office, ‘in this case and is Respondent in the above entitled case. All parties in the caption of the case on the cover page. . ii