I. Whether a defendant's sentence for fraud offenses that applied 21 U.S.C. § 802(32), USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1), and USSG §2D1.1 and treated Bays as a "controlled substance case," violates his Fifth and Sixth amendment rights, when the government failed to prove and the jury did not find that: (1) the synthetic cannabinoids were controlled-substance-analogues for the designated time period, and (2) the defendant knew the analogues were controlled.

II. Whether a defendant's sentence for fraud offenses that applied 21 U.S.C. § 802(32), USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1), USSG §2D1.1 and treated Bays as a "controlled substance case," is an ex post facto violation, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, because it punished him for lawful conduct, and deprived him of a lawful defense.

Whether a defendant's sentence for fraud offenses that applied 21 U.S.C. § 802(32), USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1), and USSG §2D1.1 and treated Bays as a 'controlled substance case,' violates his Fifth and Sixth amendment rights