whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense for a sentencing enhancement under the Guidelines. See United States v. Palomino Garcia, 606 F.3d 1317, 1328 (11th Cir.2010). 3 . Count 2 of the information charges Roye with possession of a controlled substance in violation of Florida Statute § 893.13(6)(a), which punishes the actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance but does not specify the quantity. See Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a). Although Roye also pled no contest to this count, it is unclear from the limited information presented in this case whether the cocaine possessed for purposes of this simple possession charge is the same cocaine associated with the trafficking in cocaine charge. 4 . See United States v. Tagg, 572 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) ("Whoever commits an offense
holding the petitioner had failed to show  a wellfounded fear of persecution and was fleeing legitimate prosecution in his home country when the petitioner was arrested  because he participated in a violent demonstration in which people were armed with hockey sticks and pipe bombs holding that the defendant was denied wrongfully his right to crossexamine on the issue of whether the device was designed as a pipe bomb or as a firecracker and that the jury may have found reasonable doubt if that right was not denied holding in a habeas action that the state properly made a codefendants conviction part of its case where it had charged the defendant with aiding and abetting the same offense and the defendant had made the codefendants guilt part of his own case by arguing that only the codefendant had committed the offenses he was charged with aiding and abetting holding that sufficient evidence supported a federal conviction for aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of a firearm when there was evidence that the defendant had driven the ultimate possessors of the pipe bomb to a store had purchased gunpowder for them with the understanding that they planned to use it to build pipe bombs had observed the possessors build the pipe bombs in his garage using his tools had seen the finished product and had told the possessors to go light the pipe bombs somewhere else holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there