to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), arguing inter alia that he was improperly sentenced in light of our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc), because he did not have the requisite qualifying prior convictions to trigger a mandatory life sentence or the career offender designation. The district court granted the motion with regard to the Simmons issue and ordered resentencing. At resentencing, the district court concluded that Austin did not qualify for the enhanced sentence under § 851 or the career offender designation. The court further sustained Austin’s objections to three criminal history points, as calculated in the original PSR, assigned to convictions that were consolidated for sentencing. See United States v. Davis, 720 F.3d 215 (4th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). The district court calculated a revised
holding that the guidelines definition of consolidated offenses was not applicable to a statutory minimum sentence imposed under 841 holding that where a defendant receives a consolidated sentence or consolidated judgment under north carolina law it is one sentence and absent another qualifying sentence the career offender enhancement is inapplicable holding that a debtor is required to claim any exemptions under north carolina law because north carolina is an opt out state under 11 usc  522b holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce holding that consolidated sen tence or consolidated judgment under north carolina law is single sentence for guidelines purposes