With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was convicted of violating. See United States v. Evans, 576 F.3d 766, 769-70 (7th Cir.2009) (Posner, J., concurring). Here, the judgment indicates that defendant was convicted of distribution of simulated crack cocaine. The Iowa statute of conviction, as noted above, covers distribution of both real and fake drugs; thus, if the judgment had been silent, it may have been permissible to look to the documents mentioned in Shepard to determine which provision of the statute defendant violated. But the judgment is clear — defendant was actually convicted of distributing fake drugs — so there is no need to look any further. For the trolled substance analogue” under 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(32) & 813, but those provisions are not at issue here. See United States v. Hodge, 321 F.3d 429 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The guideline states: "The term

A: holding that congress did not intend to give individuals a right to enforce  specific provisions of  nclb
B: holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing  1983
C: holding insurer did not have to cover insured for a breach of contract because it was not an accident
D: holding that a wax and flour mixture is not a controlled substance analogue and explaining that congress did not intend to cover such substances under  80232
D.