1. Did both the United States District Court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal 3-judge panel fail to properly execercise its permissible authority to amend and apply a variety of statutory vehicles (ie: §1B1.13(b)(5), 28 U.S.C. §2255, or Rule 60(b)(l)-(6)) to Petitioner 's extraordinary and compelling claim(s) of his actual/factual inno cence, or to facially order an investigatory evidentiary hearing on the newly removed threats upon his.life, and the lives of his family in Mexico; and

2. Did the lower courts fail to deem the death threats against the petitioner and his family in Mexico that forced his plea of guilty in this matter by the now defunct and eliminated Puebla Cartel "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for a Sentence Reduction; or

3. Did the lower courts fail to interpret the Petitioner 's Motion For A Reduction of Sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582,et.seq. and a resultant return to his family in Mexico an attempt under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to vacate his guilty plea or sentence (See: Doc. #401); and

4. Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals prejudice the Appellant 's appeal rights by failing to place petitioner's case in abeyance by the court in light of the United States Supreme Courts accep tance of certiorari in:
a) U.S. v. Bricker, No. 24-3286, 2025 WL 116016 at 1. (6th Cir.)
b) Rutherford v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 36620, (6th Cir.)
c) Carter v. United States, No. 24-860 (S.Ct. Cert.)
d) U.S. v. McCall, 56 F.4th 1048 (6th Cir. 2022)

Did the lower courts improperly deny sentence reduction based on extraordinary and compelling reasons involving death threats against the petitioner and his family in Mexico under 18 U.S.C. §3582