Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit erroneously concluded that Petitioner's Fla. Stat. § 893.13 drug offense qualifies within the ACCA's definition of a 'serious drug offense' where mens rea is not an implied element

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals ; for the Eleventh Circuit erroneously concluded in in finding Petitioner's Fla. Stat. § 893.13 drug . offense qualifies within the ACCA's definition of a "serious drug offense" where mens rea is not even an implied element of the definition of. a "serious drug offense" in § 924(e). or § 4B1.2(b), according to their preceidential opinion in United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) ? 2. Whether the Court should grant certiorari to correct the Eleventh Circuit's clear error in : United States v. Smith, that a conviction under a strict liability state drug statute is a proper ACCA predicate in conflict: with Elonis and McFadden ? : 3. Whether the preponderance of the evidence ... finding fails to support an enhancement under § 2K1.1 . (b)(1) without any proof in the record that Petitioner had knowledge that the firearms were stolen ? 4. Whether the elements of a crime with the word "knowingly" means that mens rea requirement must apply to all the ensuing substantive elements of a crime ?