Whether the Eighth Circuit's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) and the Sentencing Commission's use of commentary to expand the definition of 'controlled substance offense' is consistent with congressional intent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Title 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) authorized the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines that, based on legislative history, were intended harshly punish recidivist drug traffickers. The current version of the Guideline issued on the authority of Chapter 994(h) uses the terms “manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing” in U.S.S.G. §4D1.2 to describe the drug offenses that qualify as career offender predicates, and the Eighth Circuit interprets this to include offenses that are not drug trafficking offenses. Is this interpretation inconsistent with what Congress intended when enacting Chapter 994(h)? Does the Commission's use of commentary to U.S.S.G. §4D1.2, which adds attempt, aiding and abetting and conspiracy crimes to the definition of "controlled substance offense," deserve no deference? Does the Commission’s use of commentary in Chapter 4 of the Guidelines that, contrary to Relevant Conduct Guideline in Chapter 1 of the Guidelines, authorizes the use of relevant conduct when calculating a defendant’s criminal history also deserve no deference? i