1) peTiTIoNer Obsects To The hower courrs deTenmiratio> ThAT peTiTIONER STIpUlUTEd ait Triul That The scheme wuolved c1 WIne COMMUNiCUTIONS aFFECTINg INTErSTUTe comnerce" petiTioner Argves That The Lower COUrTS dECISIOS CONFliCTS WItA ESTABlShEd precedent or The supreme cowsT ResuitNg IN a FuNdameTal Miscaniage oF Justice.

WHETHER THE FACT "INTENT LOSS" AMOUJTED ATTRIBUTED BY THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING 3DI. 2 (d) CONSTITUTES ELENENTS O-THE THE LOSS OF LIBERTY BASED UPON THE STATOTORY MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ALlOWED BY LAW. SEE: ALLEYNE V. ONITED STATES 570 U.S.99 108 S.CT. n 21S1, 186 L Ed.2d.314 (2013)- APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY S30 U.S.466, 120

Whether the lower courts erred in determining that the scheme involved in this case did not affect 'interstate commerce' as required by the Hobbs Act