Whether the government violated the petitioner's 8th Amendment and 5th Amendment constitutional rights by using separate incidents as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes, and whether the government violated the petitioner's 4th Amendment rights by seizing and forfeiting currency unrelated to the offense of conviction

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; : (1). Weather the Government violated the Petitioner's 8th Amendment. Constitutional _ Rights (To be free from infliction of Cruel : and Unusual Part], and , The 5th Amendment, [Relevant Part], : Due oo Process _ By being in Non-Compliance 7 : with the U.S.S.G using Cases or Incidents . : '. Seperated by Intervening’ Arrest: July 26, 2019, November 26, 2019, and March 20, 2020 a ; . being incidents related to the offense . conduct that occurred on June 29, 2020 as . Relevant Conduct. When there was. different : drug types, different users, and different. : : location, along with months, in between the arrest. (2) Weather the Government violated the ; Petioner's Ath Amendment Constitutional ; , Rights (Expectation of Privacy){Relevant , ; Parts], By Seizing & Forfeiting currency in : ‘violation of the 14th Amendment [Due Process Clause ]{Relevant Part] Equal Protection of the Law. That was seized & forfeited by local : law enforcement agencies on July 26, 2019 ($1,003); November 26, 2019; ($53,843.66); March 20, 2020($2,692) which are not related . to the incident and conviction of offense ae that occurred on June 29, 2020. Also was the | | “ay . . . | QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . ‘ _ Government further in Non-Compliance with ; . Fed. R. of Crim. P. 32.2(a) and 41(g). In . : 7 "violation of the 7th Amendment , Constitutionally Protected Rights. (3)Whether Petitioner was denied Effective . Assistance of Counsel, When Counsel failed . to object to the inclusion of separate ; , ; arrest,. involving separate conduct as relevant conduct of a continued criminal . , episode, that was objected to in the Plea : Agreement and counsel informed Petitioner that he would be able to present any challenges during the sentencing phase. Did : the Counsel's advice cause a defect in the proceedings resulting in the Court's 3553(a) sentencing factors denial of acceptance of responsibility, Guideline Adjustments? (iii) . The District Court failed to make express findings that:certain controlled substances . offenses were relevant under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §1B1.3(a)(2).. When a Court seeks to determine the calculation ; of a Defendant's base Offense Level under the U.S.S.G Manual, A District Court is required to . take into consideration not only the types and ~ quantities of drugs specified in the offense of conviction, but also any drugs that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme. ; As Cited in United States v. Acosta, 85 f.3d 275. When a Defendant in a Drug Distribution Case is sentenced on the basis of uncharged conduct ; pursuant to §1B1.13(a)(2), the Government's , burden of proof'is twofold: It must first prove by a perponderance of the evidence. Given the . factual nature of this inquiry, a District Court's Determination taat uncharged offenses are part of the same course of conduct as the offense conviction is reviewed only for Clear Error. ib. Moreover, A ‘Pattern of Activity", finding . should not be equated with "Relevant Conduct" under $1B1.13(b) which requires not just that the defendant committed certain types of offenses two times or more, but that the two offenses at issues were part of the same course of conduct, U.S.S.G §1B1.3(a)(2), certainly the facts that a defendant commits a certain type of offense on multiple’ occassions does not inevitably mean that each seperate offense is part of the same course of conduct. As 839 f. 3d 545 United States v. Schrode. (iv) Temporal Gaps as brief as five months cut , against a finding that an activity was part of : the same course of conduct as the offense of ; conviction. 431 £.3d at 1041-42 (finding no relevant conduct where the offense were not : sufficiently similar because they involved ' different drugs, smaller scale operations, and significant smaller drug guantities. See United : States'v. Ortiz, 431 F.3d 1035. . "Ct]he mere fact that the Defendant has engaged _ in other drug tcansactions is not sufficient to justify treating t