Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals misconstrued the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and the Fifth Amendment due process mandate, when it refused to consider critical facts regarding the flawed original change of plea proceedings and subsequent court proceedings, and the consequences of the confusing and unclear advisement Mr. Sandiford was given by the Magistrate Judge about the consequences of his plea on his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, exacerbated by the District Court's repeated discussion of Mr. Sandiford's arguments being reviewed on appeal, and then misconstrued the law when the Court of Appeals refused to consider the important Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues raised by Mr. Sandiford's challenge to the seizure of digital data from distant online platforms connected to his cell phones without a proper warrant authorizing the seizure of such information and data, instead relying on a roaming general search warrant authorizing the search and seizure of Mr. Sandiford's cell phone wherever it may be located and the unbounded search of the entirety of the internet and universe of cloud-based storage platforms and applications that may be connected to the seized cell phone, and upheld the denial of Mr. Sandiford's meritorious motions to suppress electronic digital evidence illegally seized by the government.

Whether the Eleventh Circuit misconstrued the Fourth and Fifth Amendment warrant and due process requirements when refusing to consider critical facts about flawed plea proceedings and digital evidence seizure