Does it comport with the Due Process Clause and the prohibition against Double Jeopardy to, for all practical purposes, simultaneously impose two (2) sentences--the first for a drug offense under U.S.S.G. § [Sec] 2D1.1 and the second for "career offender" status under U.S.S.G. [Sec] 4B1.2--so that should the first sentence be the second sentence would serve as a "back-UP/fall-back" alternative?

In post-sentencing litigation, can the Government argue and the courts find that a defendant was a CO and thereby prohibit a defendant from deriving the benefit of an amended Guideline range when the record [sentencing hearing transcript and judgment and commitment order] do not contain facts necessary to conclude that the defendant was, indeed, a CO?

Does it comport with the Due Process Clause and the prohibition against Double Jeopardy to simultaneously impose two sentences for a drug offense and career-offender status?