I. IS IT A VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE WHEN EXERCISING OUT'S RIGHT TO TRIAL, THAT AN OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT CONNECTING THE DEFENDANT DIRECTLY TO THE CRIME HE OR SHE IS ACCUSED OF IS ADMITTED DURING TRIAL MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CROSS-EXAM THE WITNESS' OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT?

II. IF ACQUITTED UNDER COUNT I'S CONSPIRACY OFFENSE, IS IT A VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, FOR THE COURT TO RELY ON THE SAME OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS WITHOUT ANY CONFRONTATION BY DEFENDANT OR CROSS-EXAM TO CONVICT DEFENDANT ON THE REMAINING DISTRIBUTION COUNTS?

III. THE FIRST STEP ACT'S PRINCIPLES INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF CONVICTION THAT DEFENDANT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF NOT JUDGE RELATED RELEVANT CONDUCT FACTS TO EXTRAPOLATE, APPROXIMATE, OR DEDUCT THROUGH INFERENCE TO DETERMINE A DRUG QUANTITY; IS IT DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS WHEN THE COURT USES ITS PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE STANDARD TO DETERMINE AN AMOUNT ABOVE THE TRIAL FINDINGS OF 0 TO 20-YEARS TO 5 TO 40-YEARS?

Is it a violation of the Confrontation Clause when an out-of-court statement connecting the defendant to the crime is admitted during trial, making it impossible to cross-examine the witness?