Does the application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under United States Sentencing Guideline § 2A1.5(b)(1) to the sentence calculation of a defendant convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) constitute "impermissible double counting" in violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses?

Does its further application through "grouping" of multicount convictions at the higher offense level of convicted counts, per U.S. Sentencing Guideline §§ 3D1.2 and 3D1.3, impacting a count for which the sentencing enhancement does not apply, resulting in a longer sentence, constitute a double jeopardy "multiple punishment" through essentially "triple counting" or "cumulative counting"?

Should 18 U.S.C. § 1201(d) be invalidated as "void for vagueness" and overbreadth because it relies on the word "attempt" which Congress has never defined because it has not enacted a federal attempt liability statute?

Did the courts violate the Separation of Powers doctrine by adopting the Model Penal Code definition of "attempt" in the absence of both a federal attempt liability statute and any authorization from Congress to use the Model Penal Code definition?

Is the Petitioner innocent of attempted kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(d) due to "legal innocence"?

Should the Court issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 1651(a); or a Writ of Audita Querela or Writ De Homine Replegiando?

Does the application of a four-level sentencing enhancement constitute impermissible double counting in violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses?