WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY EXPANDED GUIDELINE § 1B1.3 BY INCLUDING AS RELEVANT DRUG WEIGHT UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS OF TWO COOPERATING DEFENDANTS WHO ATTRIBUTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF METHAMPHETAMINE TO THE PETITIONER, THUS ELEVATING HIS OFFENSE LEVEL, AND THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ERRED IN HOLDING THIS WAS RELEVANT CONDUCT, EVEN THOUGH THE PETITIONER WAS ONLY CHARGED WITH AND PLED GUILTY TO POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE COCAINE.

Whether the district court improperly expanded Guideline § 1B1.3 by including as relevant drug weight uncorroborated statements of two cooperating defendants who attributed a significant amount of methamphetamine to the petitioner, thus elevating his offense level, and the Fourth Circuit erred in holding this was relevant conduct, even though the petitioner was only charged with and pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine