1. Whether the two clauses in 18 U.S.C. §924(c) creates two separate crimes or a single crime and whether the conflation of the elements of the two distinct clauses in § 924(c) creates a non-existent federal criminal offense?

2. Whether Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 should be revisited because analyzing the statutory scheme of the substantial assistance statutes-- 18 U.S.C. §3553(e), 28 U.S.C. § 994 and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1—and the powers of the Sentencing Commission conferred by Congress, a district court has discretion to depart below the statutory minimum sentencing following a government motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1?

3. Whether the waiver of appeal provision in the plea agreement is not valid and is unenforceable because both the waiver and the guilty plea in count 4 were not knowingly and voluntarily made and enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice because Mr. Rogers was convicted and sentenced on a non-existent offense and there is no federal statute that criminalizes the conduct as alleged in the Indictment?

Whether the two clauses in 18 U.S.C. §924(c) creates two separate crimes or a single crime and whether the conflation of the elements of the two distinct clauses creates a nonexistent federal criminal offense,statutory-interpretation,criminal-law,federal-statute,sentencing,plea-agreement,criminal-procedure
24-6071"