1) Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in affirming the district court's
denial of a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 despite procedural
errors, including the use of an erroneous probation worksheet contain
ing factually incorrect information, as well as the district court
willfully ignoring the Petitioner's initial motion filed on February
7, 2024.

2) Whether the district court's blanket exclusion of offenders with
specific enhancments contradicts the discretion provided to the
Court for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) contradicting
established precedent from Dillon v. United States and United States
v. Torres-Aquino .

3) Whether the district court erred by denying Petitioner's motion
for sentence reductions without considering the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), despite the clear mandate of Dillon v. United
States and United States v. Bravo, requiring court to weigh applic
able policy statements and exercise discretion.

4) Whether the Government's own Motion for Downward Departure
Pursuant to USSG 5K1.1, which acknowledged specific offense; levels
of 33, 34, and 35 as well as guideline ranges for the Petitioner,
and as referenced the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, highlights
the existence of discernible errors in the probation worksheet that
the district court relied on in denying the Petitioner's motion.

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in affirming the district court's denial of a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 despite procedural errors and alleged judicial discretion violations