Does a United States District Court retain criminal jurisdiction (under 18 U.S.C. § 3231) over a defendant after a jury's finding of not guilty to persist in the prosecution of a supervised release revocation/violation, when the plain language of § 3231 requires "... an offense against the laws of the United States," where the alleged violation is premised upon the jury trials acquitted conduct that arose from the very same event. ? And;

As a result of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, Section 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) adding Subsection (c) (Acquitted Conduct) does not begin to remedy the bedrock Constitutional issues under the Fifth and Sixth Amendmends and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)'s Due Process Clause violation regarding the preponderance of evidence on a felony or "infamous" sentence.

Whether a federal district court retains criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 to prosecute a supervised release violation based on conduct for which a jury acquitted the defendant, and whether the Sentencing Commission's amendment to Guidelines Section 1B1.3 remedies Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations arising from application of the preponderance standard to acquitted conduct