Can a the breaking and entering of outbouildings (ie. storage Sheds), that were visably and actually padlocked from the outside, where no reasonable person, jurist or otherwise, could infer there were any inhabitants, be used as predicate offenses for the purpose of enhancing a sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)?

Did the lower Court err when it looked behind Edward's Conviction for breaking and entering under North Crolina state law in search of record evidence that he actually committed the generic offense of "burglary" under the ACCA, and imposed 18 U.S.C.§ 922 (g)?

Was Edward's deprived the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel because his attorney erroneously argued that the First Step Act of 2018 somehow changed the language of the AccA, rather then Correctly identify and argue the merits of the case

Can a conviction in North Carolina state court involving the breaking and entering of outbuildings (storage sheds) that were visibly and actually padlocked from the outside, where no reasonable person could or would infer they were any inhabitants, be used as predicate offenses for the purpose of enhancing a sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)?