1) DID THE LOWER COURT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS AND/OR EQUAL PROTECTION BY
FAILING BY FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT HAYWARD HAD A PRIVACY POSSESSORY
INTEREST IN THE SEIZED PROPERTY THEREBY SUPPORTING STANDING TO CHALLENGE
THE SEIZURE OF THE DUFFEL BAG PURSUANT TO PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED IN
UNITED STATES V. PLACE, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) IN CONJUNCTION WITH TEXAS
V. BROWN, 462 U.S. 730 (1983)?

2) DID THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATE DUE PROCESS WHEN IT TOTALLY FAILED
TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE SQUARELY BEFORE IT THAT THE OFFENSE LEVEL
DETERMINED PURSUANT TO THE GUIDELINES WAS IMPROPERLY CALCULATED IN
VIOLATION OF GALL V. UNITED STATES, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT CONCEDED?

Did the lower court violate due-process and/or equal-protection by failing to recognize Hayward's privacy-possessory-interest and standing to challenge the seizure