In light of the decision in United States v. Haymond , 139 S.Ct. 2369 (2019),
recognizing fundamental Fifth and Sixth Amendment limits on the imposition and
revocation of supervised release, did the dist rict court's failure to afford petitioner an
opportunity to be heard prior to adjudicating him guilty of supervised release violations
as well as the court's failure to determine the adequacy of a factual basis for such an
adjudication of guilt deprive petitioner of his constitutional rights?

Did the district court's failure to afford petitioner an opportunity to be heard prior to adjudicating him guilty of supervised release violations as well as the court's failure to determine the adequacy of a factual basis for such an adjudication of guilt deprive petitioner of his constitutional rights?