enhanced sentence in his initial § 2255 motion. See id. (“A motion to vacate is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of a prisoner’s detention only when it cannot remedy a particular kind of claim.”). To the extent Petitioner contends that his claims were foreclosed at the time of his § 2255 motion, his argument is without merit, as § 2255 was still an adequate remedy to test his claim. See id. (“Even if a prisoner’s claim fails under circuit precedent, a motion to vacate remains an adequate and effective remedy for a prisoner to raise the claim....”). And in any event, his argument that his prior drug convictions under § 893.13 do not qualify as predicate offenses is still foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (11th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); McCarthy v. United States, 135 F.3d 754,
holding that a state conviction is a drug trafficking offense because the trafficked drug is listed in a csa schedule holding that a conviction for a violating fla stat  84301 constitutes a violent felony under the acca holding convictions under fla stat  893131 qualify as serious drug offenses pursuant to the acca despite the florida statutes lack of a mens rea element holding that a conviction under fla stat  893131 is a serious drug offense holding that section 893131 of the florida statutes is  a controlled substance offense under ussg  4b12b