Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the district court's erroneous determination that Petitioner was a career offender, based on Petitioner's 2012 Virginia conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, was not plain error. The error was plain and obvious because under any of the current methodologies employed by various circuit courts for defining "controlled substance offense" when applying the categorical approach mandated by this Court, Petitioner's Virginia state conviction did not qualify as a controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1(a)(3).

Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion when it held that Petitioner's argument raised in his supplemental brief based on a case that court decided after argument in the present case, was waived.

Whether any error can be plain or obvious if a circuit conflict exists on a question, and the law is unsettled in the circuit in which the appeal was taken. The Tenth Circuit holds that an error can be plain or obvious even where there a circuit conflict exists, and the law is unsettled in the circuit in which the appeal is taken. The First Circuit holds that an error can never be plain or obvious if there is a split in the circuits and the question is unsettled in the circuit in which the appeal is taken. This case is a perfect vehicle for addressing this split in the circuits.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the district court's erroneous determination that Petitioner was a career offender, based on Petitioner's 2012 Virginia conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, was not plain error