Does the application of a four-level sentencing enhancement constitute impermissible double counting in violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR_REVIEW 1.) Does the application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under United States Sentencing Guideline § 2A1.5(b)(1) to the sentence calculation of a defendant convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) constitute "impermissible double counting" in violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses? : 2.) Does its further application through "grouping" of multicount convictions at the higher offense level of convicted counts, per U.S. Sentencing Guideline §§ 3D1.2 and 3D1.3, impacting a count for which the sentencing enhancement does not apply, resulting in a longer sentence, constitute a double jeopardy "multiple punishment" through essentially "triple counting” or "cumulative counting’? 3.) Should 18 U.S.C. § 1201(d) be invalidated as "void for vagueness" and overbreadth because it relies on the word "attempt" which Congress has never defined because it has not enacted a federal attempt liability statute? 4.) Did the courts violate the Separation of Powers doctrine by adopting the Model Penal Code definition of "attempt" in the absence of both a federal attempt liability statute and any authorization from Congress to use the Model Penal Code definition? 5.) Is the Petitioner innocertty of attempted kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(d) due to "legal innocence"? 6.) Should the Court issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 1651(a); or a Writ of Audita Querela or Writ De Homine Replegiando? -1 :