Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits imposing an enhanced ACCA sentence when a defendant pleaded guilty only to the simple § 922(g) offense and jeopardy has attached to that conviction?

In 2022, Petitioner Thomas Bradley was charged with and pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). At sentencing, over his objection, the judge imposed an enhanced penalty under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (“ACCA”), based on its finding—by a preponderance of the evidence and based on information from Shepard documents outside the record of the plea proceeding—that he had at least three prior ACCA-qualifying convictions committed on “occasions different from one another.” While Mr. Bradley’s appeal was pending, this Court decided Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), establishing that his ACCA sentence was imposed in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In reaching its conclusion, the Court explained why sentencing judges cannot use information from Shepard documents to decide whether a defendant committed his prior offenses on different occasions. The questions presented are: I. Because harmless-error review of Erlinger error typically requires appellate judges to evaluate facts outside the record of conviction for the charged § 922(g)(1) offense, is Erlinger error structural? II. If harmless-error review applies to Erlinger error, can appellate judges rely on Shepard documents to decide what a hypothetical jury would find when the defendant pled guilty only to the charged § 922(g) offense? III. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits imposing an enhanced ACCA sentence when a defendant pleaded guilty only to the simple § 922(g) offense and jeopardy has attached to that conviction?