In the case, as in hundreds of cases over the years since the enactment of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which mandates exclusion and/or suppression of evidence obtained or derived from a wire intercept, where information expressly required by the statute was omitted from: the affidavit requesting a wire intercept order; the Order authorizing the wire intercept; and other such requirements as required under 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 2512 through 2518 et seq., as well as requiring the disclosure of the application and order ten (10) days prior to the use in any proceeding.

Additionally, in the majority of drug cases disposed of by plea agreement, the concept of relevant conduct, in many cases, becomes the sentencing component that increases a defendant's exposure to, and sentence to imprisonment by a significant increase in offense level or increases that exceed statutory maximums, which under the current sentencing practice abrogates the Fifth And Sixth Amendment rights of Notice and Due Process, because of the Government's practice of depriving criminal defendants of their liberty interest based on Judge-found facts under a preponderance of the evidence standard that disregards proof of mens rea required by statute.

WHETHER THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., MANDATES A BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE GOVERNMENT IN CASES INVOLVING WIRE INTERCEPTS, WHICH REQUIRES THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXCLUSIONARY MANDATE OF 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., SPECIFICALLY 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9), PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED OR DERIVED FROM ANY SUCH WIRE INTERCEPTS?

WITHOUT COMPLIANCE AND EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9), IS THE INTRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE FROM WIRE INTERCEPTS OR DERIVED FROM WIRE INTERCEPTS REVERSIBLE ERROR THAT IS PLAIN AND OBVIOUS, AFFECTS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, AND IMPUGNS THE FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, OR PUBLIC REPUTATION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS?

IS A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UNDER 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a) (1), (b) (1) (A), A VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT NOTICE RIGHTS AND SIXTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE THE GUILTY PLEA, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ARE BASED ON AN ADMISSION OF TRAFFICKING IN ONLY ONE DRUG TYPE AND QUANTITY, LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME IN PRISON UNDER § 841(b), WHEN ADDITIONAL DRUG QUANTITIES AND TYPES ARE FOUND BY A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE STANDARD?

IN LIGHT OF THE FLORES-FIGUEROA v UNITED STATES, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), AND ABRABSKI v UNITED STATES, 573 U.S. , 134 S.Ct. 189 L.Ed.2d 262, 2014 LEXIS 4170 (2014) DECISIONS, DOES THE "KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY" MENS REA CONTAINED IN 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) APPLY TO THE OFFENSE ELEMENTS OF

Whether the statutory language of 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. mandates a burden of proof on the government in cases involving wire intercepts