Dennis Michael Hogan v. United States

Whether federal district court abuses its descretion under Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. S. Ct (12022), when it denies a motion for compassionate release/RIS under §3582(c)(1)(AJ without addressing specific, non-frivolous factual arguments tied to the definitions of "extraordinary and compelling reasons" in U.S.S.G. §1B1.13 and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)?

Whether a court violates the party-presentation principle re­ affirmed in Concepcion when itdenies a complex § 3582 (c)(1)(A) motion without ordering the Government to respond, and instead relieS/on its own untested assumptions ?

Whether a denial of compassionate release/ RIS based on clearly erroneous factual findings such as stating that a defendant has a lengthy criminal history and drug use that do no exist in the record constitutes re variable abuse of discretion and a violation of due process ?

Whether a court abuses its discretion by ignoring uncontrovert­ ed, professional medical evidence including medical records and swarn testimony from multiple licensed medical providers without explanation, even when the evidence satisfies the applicable defnitions of "extraordinary and compelling reasons"?

When a district court compounds and amplifies it's abuse of discretion to the point where the court wholly abandons its role as a neutral and detached fact finder, does this result, demand de novo review as required by the Fifth and "Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?