Whether the Fourth Circuit should be required to use the categorical approach, applying the parameters set by this Court, to its determination that a prior conviction is a controlled-substance-offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. §4B1.1?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Petitioner was found to be a career offender under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 because of a prior conviction of a South Carolina drug statute.! The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly held that the South Carolina statute in question is divisible, and that defendants were subject to enhancement, despite the fact that the statute includes “purchasing” as a means to violate the statute, and despite the fact that South Carolina includes the “purchasing” language in its indictments under the statute. In this case, Kershaw’s indictment also included the possibility that he violated the statute by “purchasing” the drugs in question. The lower courts relied on the following description of the offense in Kershaw’s South Carolina sentencing sheet to determine Kershaw was convicted of possession with intent to distribute: “Drugs/Manuf., poss. of other sub. in Sch. IJ, II, II or flunitrazepam or analogue, w.i.t.d. — 1st”. This description is a generic description of all conduct under the South Carolina statute, including “purchasing”. The questions presented are: Whether the Fourth Circuit should be required to use the categorical approach, applying the parameters set by this Court, to its determination that a prior conviction is a controlled substance offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. §4B1.1? When evaluating a predicate offense, if the charging document is overbroad, should a court review clerical documents in an attempt to determine a defendant’s actual conduct? 1 South Carolina Code Ann. § 44-53-370