Whether the intent of Congress was to restrict the application of 21 U.S.C. § 841's recidivist enhancement to prior drug trafficking crimes that qualify as 'felony drug offenses' under federal law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In United_States_v. Taylor Infra and its progeny, the Supreme Court articulated a categorical analysis to instill due process and comity in application of recidivist clauses found in federal law. A analysis that is used universally throughout federal law, except in determining whether a prior offense is a“felony drug offense” under federal law as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 21 U.S.C. § 802 (44). This court’s decision in Burgess Infra which was to distinguish § 802 (13) from § 802 (44) has been misapplied resulting in misinterpretation of the law of congress and most importantly, the misapplication of the recidivist enhancement of § 841. This courtis needed to answer the following question to correct a nationwide injustice contrary to the intent of congress. In short the Court is needed to answer the following questions: ; . ii | The Questions Presented Are: 1). Whether it was the intent of congress to restrict the application of § 841 recidivist enhancement to previous drug trafficking crimes which are testament to “felony drug offense” under federal law. i.e, was it the intent of congress when it used the term “felony drug offense” to instruct that a previous crime must be the equivalent of “felony drug offense” . . under federal law to support the recidivist enchantment of 21 U.S.C § 841. 2). Whether defendants charged under 21 U.S.C § 841 entitled tothe due process protection of having their prior offenses subjected to the elements versus elements categorical analysis of Taylor Infra . to determine if they are “felony drug offense” as defined under federal law. . 3). Whether 21 U.S.C § 802(44) standing alone is unconstitutionally vague. i.e., does it provide sufficient notice and information to complete a proper categorical analysis and does it convey the true elements of a “felony drug offense” under federal law. iii