of life imprisonment because he had three qualifying prior felony drug convictions that triggered the enhancement. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (life imprisonment enhancement is available if the defendant has two or more prior convictions for a “felony drug offense” that are final and the defendant has violated subsection (b)(1)(A)). Id. Chi-solm’s challenge also fails because he failed to challenge the validity of his prior state convictions in 1994 and 1998 within the required five-year time period. 21 U.S.C. § 851(e) (defendant may not challenge “the validity of any prior conviction alleged under this section which occurred more than five years before the date of the information alleging such prior conviction”); see also United States v. Williams, 954 F.2d 668, 673 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In any event, Chisolm’s argument that his
holding on summary judgment that a regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest holding that the discovery rule within mcl 6005838a2 is an alternative to the other periods of limitation and it is itself a period of limitation holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant holding that  851es fiveyear limitation is not unconstitutional because it is reasonably tailored to impose enhanced sentences on recidivists holding that it is not