Whether, in determining if a prior offense is a 'controlled substance offense' for purposes of the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), sentencing courts should consult the law in effect at the time of the federal sentencing, or at the time the prior offense was committed

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Justin Rashaad Brown v. United States, No. 22-6389, and Eugene Jackson v. United States, No. 22-6640, the Court will decide whether, when determining if a prior offense is a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), a federal sentencing court should consult the law in effect at the time of the federal sentencing, the federal offense, or the prior offense. The ACCA enhances sentences of defendants convicted of firearm offenses who have three prior “violent felonies” or “serious drug offenses.” The instant petition asks the Court to resolve a similar timing question regarding the definition of “controlled substance offense” in the analogous career offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That provision increases the guideline range where the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a “crime of violence” or a “controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The question presented is whether, in determining if a prior offense is a “controlled substance offense” for purposes of the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), sentencing courts should consult the law in effect at the time of the federal sentencing, or at the time the prior offense was committed.! 1 This question is similar to that presented in Devin Baker v. United States, No. 22-7359. Mr. Baker filed his reply to the government’s response to the petition for writ of certiorari on July 31, 2023. i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no