Whether the 'serious drug offense' definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) incorporates the federal drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense or the federal drug schedules in effect at the time of the prior state drug offense

QUESTIONS PRESENTED L. Whether the “serious drug offense” definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)Gi), incorporates the federal drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense, or the federal drug schedules in effect at the time of the prior state drug offense.! I. Whether this Court should grant review to determine whether Faretta hearings must be repeated at each critical stage of criminal proceedings. III. Whether this Court should grant review to determine whether the Mr. Hameen was denied his right to due process regarding his Rehaif claim. IV. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Hameen’s intrastate possession of a firearm. V. Whether a sentencing judge may rely on non-elemental facts to conclude that a defendant’s prior offenses were “committed on occasions different from one another” and impose the mandatory-minimum prison term under ACCA, § 924(e)(1), or whether such facts must be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 This Court has granted the petitions for a writ of certiorari in United States v. Brown, Case No. 22-6389, and Jackson v. United States, Case No. 22-6640, to resolve this question. Mr. Hameen respectfully asks this Court to hold his petition pending the Court’s consideration of Brown and Jackson and then dispose of it as appropriate. i