Whether the Sixth Circuit improperly affirmed a supervised release violation and new law convictions based on clearly erroneous factual findings related to self-defense claims

I. Whether the Sixth Circuit decision affirming Mr. Hunnicutt’s supervised release violation and new law convictions, improperly upheld the clearly erroneous factual findings of the district court that were critical and material to his claim of selfdefense ? II. Whether the district court district court abused its discretion at Mr. Hunnicutt ’s sentencing proceeding and imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence upon him where it erroneously determined that he did not act in self -defense, improperly applied an enhancement, and considered other irrelevant, inaccurate, or uncorroborated information in imposing an upward variant sentence upon him? III. Whether the district court district court abused its discretion at Mr. Hunnicutt ’s sentencing proceeding and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence upon him where it varied upward and made his sentence consecutive, and placed inordinate weight on Mr. Hunnicutt ’s history and characteristics, offense facts and the need to punish, in sentencing him to a custodial term of 130-months ? IV. Whether the district court’s 70 -month sentence upon Mr. Hunnicutt resulted in a sentencing disparity with those similarly situated nationally? V. Whether the district court’s reasons for imposition of sentence on Mr. Hunnicutt’s supervised release violation included prohibited factors, including, the seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law, and just punishment, contrary to the holding of Esteras v. United Stat es, 606 U.S. 185 (2025) ?