1. Following a months-long investigation into drug trafficking and while preparing to search an apartment within a large apartment complex, police observed a Jeep occupied by three unknown individuals park outside the complex, interact briefly with an unknown woman, and then leave. The police stopped the Jeep and ultimately uncovered evidence used against Mr. Amado. Other police involved in the months-long investigation, but not in the stop of the Jeep, had twice observed the Jeep in the course of the investigation. Does the collective knowledge doctrine apply where the police who stopped the Jeep did not personally know of information relating to the broader investigation and were not directed to stop the Jeep by someone with such knowledge and, with or without application of the collective knowledge doctrine, should the evidence have been suppressed?

2. Where the district court failed to make the findings required by United States v. Dunnigan and where the record does not support that Mr. Amado willfully gave false testimony on material matters, was it error to apply the obstruction of justice enhancement?

3. Mr. Amado had two prior felony convictions for controlled substances offenses, but he was sentenced for those two convictions on the same date. Where the record at sentencing contained no evidence of an intervening arrest, was it error to designate Mr. Amado as a career offender?

4. Mr. Amado was sentenced to 32 years in prison while his co-equal codefendant was sentenced to fewer than 16 years in prison. Is such a drastic disparity among similarly situated co-defendants unreasonable?

Does the collective knowledge doctrine apply where the police who stopped the Jeep did not personally know of information relating to the broader investigation and were not directed to stop the Jeep by someone with such knowledge and, with or without application of the collective knowledge doctrine, should the evidence have been suppressed?