1. Whether the District Court's decision to subject the Petitioner to a lifetime
suspicionless search condition that lacks any limitations at all violated
Petitioner's Fourth Amendment Rights, and whether the Court's decision was an
abuse of process.

2. Whether the District Court's decision to subject the Petitioner to a lifetime ban
of using or owning any computer, electronic, or internet device, as well as a
lifetime ban on the entire internet, with no scope or limitations whatsoever,
was an abuse of process or violated Petitioner's First Amendment rights.

3. Whether the Government's use of Petitioner's prior no lo contendere pleas at the
sentencing hearing to prove both guilt and specific factual admissions of alleged
underlying conduct and the District Court's reliance on the Government's comments
at sentencing to substantially enhance Petitioner's sentence was constitutionally
and/ore procedurally sound.

4. Whether the District Court's decision to punish Petitioner more harshly because
the District Court believed Petitioner's prior State sentences were too lenient
was unconstitutional or an abuse of discretion.

5. Whether a piea agreement can be void for lack of consideration.

6. Whether it is constitutional or improper to charge a defendant with multiple counts
of violating 18 USC §2252(a) (4)(B) when the factual allegations involve only
single device.a

7. Whether it was unconstitutional for police to withhold from a warrant issuing
magistrate that a previous, fruitless search had already been conducted when the
probable cause for the warrant was based on facts that pre-dated the previous
fruit-less search.

8. Whether it is unconstitutional or improper for the Petitioner to be subjected to
a 100-month sentence enhancement (doubling his guideline range) based solely on
uncharged, un—adjudicated, non-law enforcement reports, and whether the District
Court erred by relying only on the Government's paraphrasing of those reports
which were not presented to the Court.

Whether the District Court's decision to subject the Petitioner to a lifetime suspicionless search condition that lacks any limitations at all violated Petitioner's Fourth Amendment Rights, and whether the Court's decision was an abuse of process