1) WHETHER THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED UNDER U.S.S.G. §2Dl.l(c)
TO ESTABLISH THE BASE OFFENSE, THE GUIDELINES ARE IN REAL
SENSE THE BASIC FOR THE SENTENCE TO APPLY THE AMENDMENT 782
ACCORD PEUGH V. U.S.
MARTINEZ V. U.S..133 S.CT 2072 (2013) and MOLINAt
136 S.CT 1338 (2016) ?

2) WHETHER THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED UNDER 21 U.S.C, §848(a)
AND (b), THE SENTENCE IS AMBIGUOUS AND THE RULE OF LENITY
REQUIRES THAT THE AMBIGUITY SHOULD BE RESOLVER IN PETITIONER tS
FAVOR ACCORD U.S. V. DAVIS, 139 S.CT 2319 (2019) ?

3) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S FAILURE TO FINALICE A PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL ORDERS OF FORFEITURE AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THE
JUDGMENT, ALLOW THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT'S
INTERVENING DECISIONS IN HONEYCUTT V. .U.S. , 137 S.CT 1626
(2017) AND NELSON V. COLORADO, 137 s.ct 1249 (2017) ?

4) WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT THE
DISTRICT COURT TO CONFORM WITH FED.R.CRIM.P. 32.2(b)(4)(B)
BY AMENDING THE 1996 JUDGMENT WHERE THE FED.R.CRIM.P . 32.2
WAS AMENDED SUBSTANTIALLY IN 2009 ?

Whether the sentence was imposed under U.S.S.G. §201.1(c)