Whether multiple alleged judicial and prosecutorial errors in a criminal case constitute grounds for reversal of conviction and sentencing, including due process violations, improper record disclosure, and sentencing adjustments

No question identified. : Questhons Presented () Whether Standley Counsel Richard Hoke Violated Sullivans waht +0 eelt vepresentahon when he filed a Nohcee of Tntent that =) to Judge wt. Michael Seabnig int CNudge Sealovignt") ovdenng te velease of my traahn paherit = psychothaa py vecoras from S. Pier id, was all sared with 4 Plant United States Attomey ? mw! (2) Whether it S ohuctual evwor when Judge Scolovight ordered Sullivans psycho therapist/pahent medical records Dver Sutter's owechons when Judge Sealonght veleaseA all of those records to Assistant United States Attorney (Plantft) is a shuctuwal ewor and grands foy reversal under Jatee v. Redmond, 518 US. 4 (1A)? (3) Wether distnct court ered Wi orden S44 sponte a crminal defendants treahy psychiast without any wawer ov consent from defendant (fableev. Redmond, 518 US. 4 CAaAey) and continued using defendant vecovds againét her ultimately leading +o the vevocathon of her prose Status avddelendant taltt a pl Heal (violahcon of ob Amendment Due Proves Constitutonal Rignts Dokuchuval evroy) Uckaskle vy. Wiggins , AbS U.S. |e, [F3, 104.S.Ct.444, FAIL Ed. 2A 122 n.3CI\ABA)Z (4) Whether Ju ceabriant engaged iwi judicial misconduct when he chan cd Sullivans ea gp fod ne bebe wither Sullivans consent as) enhHed Sullivan withdraw ner plea bargain? (9) whether Judge Seals had uclicial vies and should have vecused himeel& fyom Sullivan’ case when he vead Cece No.4) an Ex Parte Submission ae to the whde cut of Governments case agaunst Sullivan? (e) Whether Judge Sealoriqnt Violated Sullivans Sich Amendment Covetituhonal Riguis +o selt_vepresemtathon when it was vevoked by Judge Sealovight Wi the heavwiq of Febnay 4, 20227 (}) Wretver there (5 prosecutorial misconduct when Assistant United States Miomey C'AUSA") Releccca Ann Perlmutter and TRS Agent Mark Mac Pierson loy falsely represenhng tat over 10CO trial court Sulopacnas tosued by Sudge Seabrignt were grand jury Subpoenas Was an alouse of process, Violahon of Fed. R.Cnm. P Rule It; 26U-S5.C. = 4555 and Fifth Amendment Due Process Rights? (3) Whether there ilo a violation of Speedy Tal Act and I8US¢C. 83283, Fifth and Sixth Amendments tp the United States Constituhon when Plant Government added new charges and broaden the Td Supeseding, Widictment on December 25,2010 CECE No. 1428 1051)? (4) Whether disticl court evwed in keeping defense counsel on as ieqall vepresentahon atter both counsel bareee: and Sullivan Filed numerous mothons +p withdraw counsel as there was a conflict of interest AS Gulivan Sued counse\ in awil case NO. CV-22-00454-qmis-RT (02 11-104, ECE Nos. \AFS, ISIS, 151%, 1514, 1529)? C10) Whether distict court should not have used aquitted conduct oe determine Sullivan's sentence as Sullivan vehed on Tudge Sealeiq commentary Hat if Sullivan pled at to four counts all other counts would be. gore ; Which was not twe 7? CW) Whether it was a wolaho of Sullwan Fifth Amendment Due Process Constituhonal Rights when Suage Sealoriqntt applied a base level 2 for sophistianteA means under USSG & 214 (bl2), Should rot have been ap plied as it was straight forward deposits of Sinte of Hawals vefund checks for wie fvaudk , when it was net complicated or wivicate and Judge Sealon qnit’decided it was sophisticated ? C2) Whether it & a breach of contact Colea agreement) for acceprance of vesponsibility for four counts Sullivan would recewe a a-level of acceptance of responsivity, which Qeoromment argued against . grantiig it which Judge Sealoight agreed with govemnnen® C15) Whether Te © Saalonight ened when he increased 2-level vole i offense adjustment Mofense adjustment for use of miner under USSG § >2A 4 should not have been apple as Sullivan never, m “diveching , Commanding , encowagqing , intimidating, councelin i taining, procuring, Ov Ssoliciti ng “a minor in relahon ty count 24 wire fraud? (A) Whether Ji ldge Sealoright Erroneous\ly computahon ot defendants criminal history which Yesulted in a caminal history category ot