Issue 1: Whether the appellate court erred affirming the district court's abuse of discretion in overruling petitioner's objections to the PSI Report guideline computations as to base offense level computation (drug versus robbery guideline); the counting of two prior offenses committed by petitioner as a juvenile; and, the counting of two simple possession of marijuana offenses, all of which increased petitioner's guideline total offense level, recognizing that the existing law does not support the objections and to preserve the issue for future possible litigation.

ISSUE 2: Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the district court's abuse of discretion denying petitioner's motion for a downward sentencing variance grounded upon 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as to: 1) Sentencing disparity among defendants; 2) Judicially recognized unfairness of the stash house robbery sting which targets minority and impoverished persons; 3) Unduly harsh application of guidelines in stash house robbery case; 4) Overstated criminal history where juvenile and marijuana prior convictions are scored; 5) Defendant accepts responsibility after trial; and 6) Onerous prison conditions within the Bureau of Prisons due to Covid-19 pandemic and imposed an unreasonable 190 month sentence (Co-defendant received 120 month minimum mandatory sentence) rather than the 120 month minimum mandatory sentence argued for by petitioner.

Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the district court's abuse of discretion