Sentencing; Enhancement for prior serious drug felonies; 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii); The procedure for imposing conviction-based statutory sentence enhancements under § 841; § 851; Fifth Amendment challenge to § 851(b); Constitutionality of § 851(c) under the Sixth Amendment; Whether the district court followed § 851 procedure; “Serious drug offense” defined; 18 USC § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)

In an amended opinion (see e-Journal #77939 in the 8/25/2022 edition for the original opinion) the court again held that because defendant-Fields never asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself during the colloquy for his § 841 sentence enhancement, his claim the requirement that he admit or deny his prior convictions violated the Fifth Amendment failed. It also held that “the district court’s application of § 851 did not produce a Sixth Amendment violation.” But it concluded that one of the prior state felonies used to enhance his sentence did not qualify as a “serious drug offense” and thus, could not “serve as a ‘serious drug felony’ for purposes of” his 25-year mandatory minimum enhancement. Thus, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing.