There is a circuit split with Question I whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional or not pursuant to Bruen such as to impact Trammell's conviction. As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals , there is a circuit split regarding whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional pursuant to Bruen , and it found this defeats the Petitioner 's Argument for relief under plain- error review .

Question I - If Counts 4 & 5, relating to firearms possession per § 922(g) , were multiplicious and unconstitutional per the Second Amendment and this Court's holding in Bruen , would not the judgment and sentence on both counts violate the prohibition on Double Jeopardy of the Fifth Amendment and the permission and liberty of the Second Amendment where Trammell was convicted on both of these charges.

Question II – Should the judgement of acquittal as to Count 7 – assaulting, resisting or impeding a federal officer - have been granted, just as it was on Count 6- attempted murder of a federal officer? The evidence failed to establish all the elements needed for th at alleged crime, just as they failed to establish the elements needed for Count 6 as the district court found.

Question III – Should the judgment of acquittal should have been granted as Counts 4 and 5 against Trammel as those firearms were possessed by the driver and others and not Trammell, per the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution?

Question IV - Should the Judgment of Acquittal on Count 1, Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute 40 grams of fentanyl, have been granted as to Terrell Trammell? And was it Reversible Error to Permit Evidence Relating to Frank Trammell's drug dealings to be Introduced in Terrell Trammell's Trial As A True Conspiracy Of Frank Trammell and his brother Terrell Trammell Was Never Shown?

Question V – Should the judgment of acquittal have been granted on Count 4, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, as no nexus to drug trafficking was shown?

Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under Bruen and violates the Second and Fifth Amendments' protections against double jeopardy