WHEIHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING PETITIONER FOR BOTH POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND FOR RECEIPT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WHICH WOULD VIOLATE DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

III. THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS FROCEDURALLY UNREASONABLE BECAUSE THE COURT RELIED ON INACCURATE INFORMATION AND WAS NOT ABLE TO APPROPRIATELY ESTABLISH THE NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PETITIONER.

Whether the district court erred in convicting petitioner for both possession of child pornography and for receipt and distribution of child pornography, which would violate double-jeopardy