Whether the term 'controlled substance' from the 'controlled substance offense' definition in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) is limited to substances that are federally controlled

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The United States Sentencing Guidelines define a “controlled substance offense” as “an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). The circuits have split on whether § 4B1.2(b) incorporates only the federal drug schedules in defining “controlled substance,” as well as on which drug schedules to consider—the drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal offense; at the time of the federal sentencing; or at the time of the defendant’s prior state drug offense. The questions presented are: (1) Whether the term “controlled substance,” from the “controlled substance offense” definition in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), is limited to substances that are federally controlled. (2) Whether the “controlled substance offense” definition in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) incorporates the drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal offense; at the time of the federal sentencing; or at the time of the defendant’s prior state drug offense. 1 The Court has granted certiorari in a pair of cases addressing the same question with regard to the Armed Career Criminal Act’s “serious drug offense” definition, which is almost identical to the Guidelines definition at issue here. See Jackson v. United States, No. 22-6640 (cert. granted May 15, 2023); Brown v. United States, No. 22-6389 (cert. granted May 15, 2023). At a minimum, the Court should stay this case pending the disposition of Jackson and Brown. i Additionally, this issue is pending before the Court in two other Guidelines cases—Harbin v. United States, No. 22-6902, and Clark v. United States, No. 22-6881. ii INTERESTED PARTIES There are no