Where is the second and fifth amendments to apply the statutory scheme of 18 USC § 922 (a)(1)(A) and 18 USC § 922(b) to a Non-Federal Firearm Licensee private citizen (natural person) who is disposing of his private personal property of guns for sale or transfer, not for wholesale or retail on the secondary market in light of Mbramski v. United States?

2. If the answer is in the affirmative what elements must be proven to establish wholesale or retail sales, and is it void for vagueness?

3. If the answer in the negative is the answer or enter function, when did the district court commit an ex post facto violation?

4. Does the sentence violate the Separation of Powers and deny Petitioner a trial by jury by omitting from the jury instructions the statutory test as written at 18 USC § 922(a)(1)(A) ("a right of the amendment to United States v. Henan 518 F.3d 92, 11th Cir. Cert Denied 1415 that it is necessary by the jury to be instructed to distinguish between a personal and a business purpose/personal objection?

5. Is it a violation of Petitioner's Second and Sixth Amendment rights to deny a Pro Se Agent access to law resources?

6. Must an Court and explanation to enhance a defendant's sentence or simply stating the "fallacies to be had we roakicered due 18 USC § 2663 (a) factor" and matter how ruled?

7. Is the sentence unreasonable and unjust under the 8th and 14th amendments because they allow facts to be found by a judge instead of a jury?

8. Does it violate the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments to allow a judge to enhance a sentence using obstruction of justice enhanced error because a case in a Zeal, U.S. meaningful without explanation?

9. If the answer is negative under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), is the element of knowledge required to be at the same level as in United States v. Fetes and is the Court's basis we lied plain error?

Whether the court's instructions to the jury violated the Separation of Powers doctrine