Whether the U.S. Sentencing Commission's guideline application note 4B1.4 cmt.n.(1) is valid under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)

Questions Presented for review ) (Bo The United States Sentencing Commission have a guideline that bear the construction of the language used in application note 4B1.4 cmt.n,(1) that states: "nor are the time periods for the counting of prior sentences under 4A1.2 (Definition and Instruction for computing criminal history) applicable to the determination of whether a defendant is subject to an enhanced sentence", under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)? See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 40-46, 113 S.Ct.1913(1993) 2) (Does the United States Sentencing Commission has the power to allow the language used in application note 4B1.4 cmt.,n. (1) that states: "nor are the time periods for the counting of prior sentences under 4A1.2(Definition and Instruction for . computing criminal history) applicable to the determination of whether a defendant is subject to an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)s", to serve as an independent legal force standing alone that violates the dictation of U.S.S.G. time period? See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36,ID at 40-46, 113 S.Ct.1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993); and United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382,at 386 (6th Cir. 2019). 3)(Coutd the Supreme Court clarify it's position when the supreme court stated: "If for example, commentary and the guideline it reference are inconsistent in following one will result in violating the dictate of the other, the Sentence Reform Act itself "commands compliance with the guidelines? See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36,at 43(1993) IV TRULINCS 40722039 MORGAN, GEMAR Unit: OAK-A-B FROM: 40722039 r ; : TO: Fyne “SUBJ Ear ail *. MORGAN, GEMAR, Reg# 40722039, OAK-A-B DATE: To: SUPREME COURT — Inmate Work Assignment: a