Scott v. United States

1. Does the Constitution require that the accused know the elements of a crime in order to validly plead guilty? 2. Is Florida § 893.13 categorically a qualifying predicate under the Sentencing Guidelines? Cf. Shular v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2723 (2019)(certiorari granted). 3. Does appellate counsel's failure to file a petition for certiorari constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel? 4. What remedy is available for petitioner when court-appointed attorney failed to file timely petition for writ of certiorari in defiance of the petitioner's written request that same be done? 5. Is it a due process right to have counsel present at a parole revocation hearing? 6. Did the Eleventh Circuit in Smith erroneously conclude that "[n]o element of mens rea with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance" is implied by the definition of "controlled substance offense" under §4B1.2(b) of so that a conviction under Florida's non-generic, strict liability the Guidelines possession-with-intent-to-distribute (PWID) statute may properly be counted as a predicate for imposition of the harsh CO enhancement? 7. Did the United States Sentencing Commission exceed its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. §994(a) when it defined "controlled substance offense" under §4B1.2(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines to include offenses lacking a mens rea element?