Did the court of appeals erroneously dispense with the requisite categorical analysis of predicate prior convictions?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the court of appeals, in rejecting petitioner’s claim that his sentencing counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge his armed career criminal sentence, erroneously dispense with the requisite categorical analysis of predicate prior convictions, where petitioner’s sentence enhancement was premised on the government’s shorthand descriptions of prior drug-offense conduct, with no reference to a corresponding statute or sentencing document, and where the underlying state-law drug statute the court of appeals assumed was applicable does not match the requisite categorical analogue under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)? 2. Did the court of appeals erroneously conclude that petitioner’s guilty plea entered pursuant to a plea agreement waived any claim by petitioner as to ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to file a meritorious, case-dispositive motion to suppress evidence? 3. Did the court of appeals err in denying a certificate of appealability on a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claim, premised on Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), that counsel failed to meet a duty to properly advise petitioner regarding his direct appeal rights, where counsel affirmatively misadvised petitioner that if he appealed the government could retaliate and seek to increase his sentence? i INTERESTED PARTIES The are no parties interested in the proceeding other than those named in the caption of the appellate decision. ii