Did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals commit error in applying 21 U.S.C. §851 sentence enhancement?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (1) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA COMMIT “PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TO APPLY THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE ‘ENHANCEMENT: PURSUANT TO 21 U.S.C. §851(a)(1) WHICH CHANGED PETITIONER'S SENTENCE FROM 10 YEARS TO A120 : YEARS . MANDATORY MINEMUM SENTENCE, WITHOUT APPLYING 21 U.S.C. §851(b) ? . (2) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA COMMIT “PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TO FAIL TO APPLY THE NEW CHANGE IN THE LAW FOR CALIFORNIA PRIOR FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO "UNITED STATES v. LUIS © OCAMPO-ESTRADA, aka. LUIS ENRIQUE OCAMPO, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16511; No. 15-50471 (August 29, 2017, Filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals)" WHICH USES '"MATHTS v. UNITED STATES, 136 S.CT. 2243, 2249, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016)" TO SUPPORT PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT PETITIONER'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTIONS. 11359 AND 11360 (CASE NUMBER: FWV17882) DO NOT QUALIFY AS A "CONTROLLED© SUBSTANCE OFFENSE. 7" . (3) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA COMMIT “PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TO DENY PETITIONER'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE COUNSEL'S CLAIM PURSUANT TO STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ? (4) IS THERE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA CASE "UNITED.STATES. v. JERMON SHANNON, JR., aka. WINFIELD WINCHESTER ROYE, 631 F.3d 1187 (Januaty. 26, 2011, Filed in the 1ith Circuit Court of Appeals)" AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN CALIFORNIA CASE "UNITED STATES v. LUIS OCAMPO-ESTRADA, aka. LUIS ' ENRIQUE. OCAMPO, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16511; No. 15-50471 (August 29, 2017, Filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals)" fased on “What consti; tuté a "controlled substance offense" under §4B1.2(b).1°2" ii