Whether Petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to lack of reasonable suspicion for search

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether Petitioner Vahe Sarkiss’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated because there was no reasonable suspicion of a violation of supervised release to support the search of Sarkiss’ property when no witness testified that they believed Sarkiss’ thumb drive found in the community laundry room contained child pornography. 2. Whether Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) should have been granted given that the indictment failed to allege an essential element and the district court failed to instruct the petit jury on that element -that the defendant knew the interstate nature of the materials or that they were produced with materials affecting interstate commerce. i STATEMENT OF