Whether a state drug statute that lists a variety of means by which it can be violated, including one which does not meet the definition of a drug distribution crime, is categorically a predicate offense for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Bryan Marshall had the incredibly bad fortune to fall victim to two very different, and very wrong, rulings. Each ruling defied this Court’s precedent and represented a lower court struggling with authority that must be clarified to avoid continuing confusion. Marshall protested police action in a manner. Despite that protection, he was arrested and searched. The search revealed a gun which triggered a harsh Armed Career Criminal Act sentence based on prior convictions not properly considered serious drug offenses under federal law. Having faced incorrect legal decisions related to both the beginning and end of his case, Marshall presents these questions to the Court: 1. Whether a state drug statute that lists a variety of means by which it can be violated, including one which does not meet the definition of a drug distribution crime, is categorically a predicate offense for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act? 2. Whether a crowd protesting police action can remove an individual’s speech from the protections of the First Amendment with presenting an immediate threat to law enforcement officers?