I. BECAUSE THERE IS A CONFLICT AMONG THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL OVER THIS MATTER, CAN THE SENTENCING COMMISSION'S COMMENTS TAKE PRECEDENT OVER THE PLAIN, STATUTORILY CONSTRUED LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES?

II. WAS THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT'S OVER PREOCCUPATION INSTEAD OF PETITIONER JANES' POST-CONVICTION REHABILITATION and substantial assistance to the government, contrary TO WHAT THIS US SUPREME COURT HELD IN PEPPERS v UNITED STATES, 562 US 476; 131 S CT 1229 (2011) AND WHAT NUMEROUS UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS ALL AGREE TO?

III. CAN THE US DISTRICT COURT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THIS US SUPREME COURT HELD IN ALLEYNE v UNITED STATES, 570 US 99; 133 S CT 2151 (2013), WRONGLY DEPART FROM PETITIONER JAMES' 70-87 MONTHS RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE MINIMUM SENTENCE TO 108 MONTHS BY MAKING AN INDEPENDENT FINDING OF FACT THAT PETITIONER JAMES DID NOT PLEAD GUILTY TO AT THE PLEA HEARING?

Whether the Sentencing Commission's comments take precedent over the plain, statutorily construed language of the United States Sentencing Guidelines