Whether it is an abuse of discretion to impose a judgment that does not adhere to congressional mandates or statutes when the defendant committed an offense prior to statutory modifications

Whether it is an abuse of discretion and/or an usurpation of power to impose a judgment that does not adhere to the congressional mandates and/or requirements of statutes. Whether is is an increase of punishment, for the purposes of Ex Post Facto violations, to impose a newer, more strict version of a statute when Congress's clearly stated intent is that the previous version should apply. Whether failure to raise challenges to constitutional issues, challenges to abuses of discretion or usurpation of power, or challenges to judgments that do not adhere to congressional mandates or requirements, especially those involving restitution and monetary penalties, on direct appeal, especially when the defendant requested multiple times that appointed counsel do so, can be waived, forfeited, or barred. Whether a defendants attempts to raise such challenges, through counsel on direct appeal and after, pro se, satisfy due diligence enough to exempt waiver or forfeiture. Whether counsel's failure or refusal to raise meritorious issues and/or challenges, specifically when his client requested that such be raised, is sufficient to establish a conflict of interest and ineffective assistance to exempt forfeiture or waiver of challenges to restitution and monetary penalties Underlying Questions;; Whether a judgment is constitutional, or if it is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, when applied to a defendant who committed his offense prior to the enactment of the modifications and amendments to a statute but was sentenced after, especially when Congress clearly stated that the previous version should apply. ii Whether it is an increase of punishment, for the purposes of Ex Post Facto violations, to impose a newer, more strict version of a statute when Congress's clearly stated intent is that the previous version apply. Whether restained counsel at sentencing, with no determinations of who paid counsel's fees, and nothing more, is sufficient to prove non-indigency , for the purpose of imposing monetary penalties under 18 U.S.C. §3014. Whether the a party can raise a defense of waiver of right to raise a challenge due to failure to raise that challenge on direct appeal, when that party itself waived its right to raise that defense by not raising it in response to the motion or petition, or did not argue it before the district court, or raise it in a reasonable amount of time. Whether a restitution order, under a statute requiring payment be made directly to victim, or victim's legal representative, is valid, or void, when there is no identifiable victim seeking restitution. Whether a mandatory minimum punishment/judgment may be imposed upon a defendant without first notifying that defendant that such exists, or is possible, at the plea hearing stage, or prior to accepting a plea of guilty. PARTIES The Petitioner is James Clifford Goodwin III, a prisoner at Federal Correctional Institution, Englewood in Colorado. The Respondant is the United States of America. iii