Whether the district court erred in concluding that the petitioner's prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was not a valid predicate offense for purposes of the career offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | Vid SUosl® of The CaP Hee MP TReveese) tho PlutederP SP ral — Deal ve Unlitd Hake, Sof us 124, U3 S.CF 1993 (q9s)t a. Ud Couhaess ial AU03 C0, with Clas Laalhudco, Cueaish the Paoten Statement of Phe Law af Phe fime Me. Ludtee’s C toatictosll became Cintal | > Qos Cuerlishrar fhe Paslee Madrmout of Phe Law, LLiaeits) the Sy iSPinh La w! : UL. Cau alcies! Pime, oftenderloe $994 (OLD be Ctonwiehel \ oF moee thas be S9AY(OLD Accusations ral C onte MocerdinG : 5s 0 Cites? Pime otfeuder [ AttuallY Taldoou? 1 of 6 Stone ot — SbSeOunl Conuiotion’ as dbtind 'd Deal vi Ubited ibs, 508 us 129 (1993)! , b. Can 19 usc SSL63A “Tas foePonate 6% U0 bene se ” 6b, Alow Pah & lol is“ Lofall alullitied’” ¢ . Ts MeLusti’s Setaud Coutblas of 224Ct) CoulSctou? Lut Phy Ouse Mescuss Claus] 14th Amaudmowl ! ;