Rodney Earl Cannady, aka Camp Earl v. United States

Did the district court error by denying defendant Cannady relief pursuant to the "First Step Act of 2018" retroactive, which made the "Fair Sentencing Act of 2010" retroactive to section-2 the 18-to-l. ,Did the district court error by:adoptihgcthba"Covered^Offense" of (601)' grams or more of cocaine base to deny Cannady relief under the Fair sentencing act,whereas facts on the record support all fact finders that Cannady pled guilty to the "Covered Offense" of (50) grams or more of cocaine base alleged within the Indictment. ~r Did the district court error by failing to recalculate defendant Cannady’s guideline range,pursuant to the "Covered Offense" of (50) grams or more of cocaine base charged in his Indictment. Did the district court error at1Cannady’s original sentencing,where the district court designated defendant as a career offender for his 1997 Conspiracy prior conviction. What part of the record,did the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agree with from the district court rulingj to deny" Cannady f reliefs-^rfer.c Ear ^.sentence reduction. What parts of the Fair Sentencing Act were made retroactive by the First Step Act as though they were in effect at the time of sentencing. Does intervening change in law apply,where defendant is eligible for relief pursuant to the First Step Act retroactive. Does Cannady qualify for the retroactive Crack amendments 706,750 and 782. Is it "right" for the district court to continue to ignore an error,a plain error that was committed by the district court at defendant's original sentencing,where the district court themselves (knew) that a sentencing error had been committed by designating defendant as a career offender. pg-5