1. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MR.
BENTLEY TO A STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF 120 MONTHS IN
THAT SUCH SENTENCE WAS GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO
ACHIEVE THE STATUTORY PURPOSES OF SENTENCING, AND,
WAS SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE.

2. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ITS UPWARD
DEPARTURE IN THE SENTENCING OF MR. BENTLEY BY:

[A] AS PRESERVED, FAILING TO PROVIDE TIMELY NOTICE
THAT IT WAS CONTEMPLATING AN UPWARD DEPARTURE.

[B] FAILING TO PREDICATE THE UPWARD DEPARTURE ON A
GROUND FOR DEPARTURE, EITHER IN THE PRESENTENCE
REPORT, OR, BY A PRE-HEARING SUBMISSION BY THE
GOVERNMENT.

[C] PREJUDICING MR. BENTLEY DUE TO A SUBSTANTIAL
INCREASE IN HIS SENTENCE, THUS NEGATING ALL OF HIS
ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY EFFORTS, WHICH WAS
AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION.

3. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CLEARLY ERRED IN RELYING
ON A RELEVANT CONDUCT ATTRIBUTION, REGARDING
CONDUCT THAT WAS REMOTE, FACTUALLY UNRELIABLE,
HAD CEASED, AND, WAS NEVER SHOWN TO BE CREDIBLY
CONNECTED TO THE CHARGED OFFENSE(S)

Whether the district court erred in sentencing Mr. Bentley