Whether this Court should resolve a Split among the Circuits and find a District Court's use of Application note 1 to U.S.8.G. § 4B1.2, which purports to add 'attempt' offenses to § 4B1.2(b)'s definition of a 'controlled substance offense,' is an improper exercise of Auer deference, resulting in an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines under 18 U.S.C. Section 3742(f)(1)

Questions Presented for Review 1. Whether this Court should resolve a Split among the Circuits and find a District Court’s use of Application note 1 to U.S.8.G. § 4B1.2, which purports to add “attempt” offenses to § 4B1.2(b)’s definition of a “controlled substance offense,” is an improper exercise of Auer deference, resulting in an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines under 18 U.S.C. Section 3742(f)(1). 2. Whether the District Court erred in denying Petitioner’s motion for a new trial because the Government used 404(b) evidence improperly against Petitioner, prejudicing his substantial rights and entitling him to a new trial. 3. Whether the District Court erred in admitting expert testimony which did not make a fact of consequence more or less likely, did not allow Petitioner to confront qualified expert analysts, and impermissibly allowed the Government to lessen their burden to disclose and admit expert testimony. ii