00hcVVvLC iht ddrtricrt coox-v trct6 vo $\o&[no^ -vViod Brouon
\S a cac^r o-^ockr vxadxr U-S.S.G MfeU aad M5LZ,
AoWerc OAt, Brouon ^ pccdxodc coavxc-Vvon^ oo\^
Ctpvxrcd (X nntas ce^cx. o-£ rccVdcs^CX^s Cd +V»c rsAc\rc\ad
-Om^ o-Q con\f\CjVlon (cxad -VWxb d\6 ood puoAd^ ocb <x
v cr\rr\t- od \ncAcacx pur 5 0.0x1+ -Vo Borden. \j. Oaldd dvcrt-e.b
\L-\ \ O Cd ^HCzozO (aad uoh+xc. dVx. drtdrtev
Opted d'\ cod 'bda-V^d dWod V\^ aVo^o^-v cx-r-ValoAo^ uoou\d
Via\ic <0r\o^xi a. ^adtaoo vd dOx ccxr^r oP-Ptod^ocourt
does- acHr appVOj. dtslapiodi ion

Whether the district court erred in finding that Brown is a career offender under U.S.S.G. §§4B1.1 and 4B1.2, where one of Brown's predicate convictions only required a mens rea of recklessness at the time of commission and thus did not qualify as a 'crime of violence' pursuant to Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), and where the district court judge specifically stated that he almost certainly would have chosen a lower sentence if the career offender designation did not apply