Whether the lower court violated the mandatory requirements of Rule 32.2(e)(1)(A) and breached the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) binding sentence, when the district court, in order to steal specific property- 39 demand drafts after the March 1, 2013 binding sentencing, pretended the 39 demand drafts, were not identified and located before sentencing. The district court pretends it does know that the sealed October 22, 2012 protective order (DE 1110), identifies and locates specific property-39 demand drafts before the November 8, 2012 binding plea agreement, before the February 14, 2013 "Amended Preliminary Order of Forfeiture " that became final as to the petitioner at the March 1, 2013 binding sentencing. As part of the binding plea agreement negotiations, the specific property-39 demand drafts were not included in the November 8, 2012 binding plea agreement. No new property was located and identified after the sealed October 22, 2012 protective order. (DE 1110). A copy of the sealed October 22, 2012 district court order, was recently unsealed by the High Court in Hong Kong and sent to the petitioner, exposing the thief of the 39 demand drafts by the district court in West Virginia.

II. Does the sealing and refusing to unseal the October 22, 2012 protective order DE 1110, that locates and identifies specific property-39 demand drafts before the March 1, 2013 binding sentencing, allow the district court to pretend that the specific property was not located and identified until after sentencing, in order for the district court to; (i) steal the specific property- 39 demand drafts after sentencing; (ii) deceive the fourth circuit into believing the specific property- 39 demand drafts were located after sentencing, when no new property was located or identified after the October 22, 2012 protective order (DE 1110), see, Supplemental Appendix. (iii) refuse to unseal DE 1110, in order to deceive the fourth circuit into erroneously find that the petitioner has no standing. (iv) issue unlawful post-sentencing amendments to the binding criminal forfeiture order that are basically just "thief orders ", to steal 39 demand drafts after the binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) March 1, 2013 sentencing. (v) the petitioner is aggrieved by stealing specific property- 39 demand drafts. No new property was located after sentencing.

III. Whether a district court after it formally transferred jurisdiction and all files and records, still had jurisdiction, that is, after the transfer of jurisdiction, to amend the binding March 1, 2013 criminal forfeiture order, in order to steal the 39 demand drafts after the binding sentencing without notice, without a hearing, without jurisdiction, without venue and without the appointment counsel.

Whether the lower court violated the mandatory requirements of Rule 32.2(e)(1)(A) and breached the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) binding sentence