Question I. Does this Court's reasoning of Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), limiting joint and several forfeiture liability to what a defendant obtained, also apply to this forfeiture order under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which held Sexton liable for nearly the entire $2.5 million loss although, as most, he obtained $624,000.
There is a Circuit Split on this issue as the 3rd and 11th Circuits found Honeycutt applies but the 6th Circuit said it does not.

Question II – Can costs not permitted by statute and not incurred as part of a victim bank's participation in a government investigation be ordered as restitution, contrary to this Court's holding in Lagos v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018)?
This circuit ruling conflicts with recent Supreme Court precedent.

Question III Was the use of a dismissed California charge as a prior conviction and to place Sexton under a criminal justice sentence as to increase his algorithmic Criminal History from a I to a III, and thus increase his algorithmic, rule-based Sentencing Range, a violation of the sentencing guidelines, our principles of individualized justice, and Due Process of Law?
This circuit ruling on increasing criminal history based on a dismissed offense violates Due Process of law under the Fifth Amendment

Does this Court's reasoning in Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), limiting joint and several forfeiture liability to what a defendant obtained, apply to this forfeiture order under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)?