COOK, Circuit Judge. Defendant James Clark, III pled guilty to a drug crime in federal court. He received an enhanced sentence because he was designated a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines based on prior marijuana convictions. Section 4B1.1 of the Guidelines states that a defendant is a career offender if, among other criteria, he has committed at least two prior felonies for a crime of violence or a “controlled substance offense.” In the time between Clark’s previous drug crimes and the current one, Tennessee and the federal government amended their respective drug schedules to narrow the definition of marijuana by excluding hemp. Based on this narrowed definition, Clark contests his career offender designation. He argues that his prior marijuana offenses are not categorically controlled substance offenses because hemp no longer qualifies as marijuana, and therefore, because his prior marijuana offenses could have been for hemp, those prior convictions cannot count as “controlled substance offenses” under § 4B1.1. Thus, this appeal asks us to decide whether the Guidelines’ use of the term “controlled substance” in the career offender enhancement should be defined with reference to the drug schedules in place at the time of the prior convictions at issue, or the schedules in effect at the time of sentencing on the current federal offense. We hold that the proper reference is the law in place at the time of the prior convictions.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Joseph Meadows claims that officers used excessive force to detain him one night during a traffic stop. Officer Steve Dumond began pursuing Meadows after he passed Dumond on the highway while traveling nearly ninety miles per hour. During the subsequent traffic stop, which was captured on dash-camera footage, Dumond instructed Meadows to keep his hands out of his vehicle and to open the door to his vehicle. Dumond and Meadows shouted back and forth as Meadows attempted to open his door. Once Meadows exited the vehicle, Dumond grabbed Meadows and slammed him to the ground. On the ground, Dumond kneed Meadows to try and roll him over, and Officer Chris Wietfeldt punched Meadows multiple times. Wietfeldt also fractured Meadows’s wrist while handcuffing him. Meadows sued the officers and the City of Walker under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The officers contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity and appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment in their favor. Their arguments reject any conclusion that the officers could see that Meadows’s actions were compliant and that he was not resisting arrest. The officers are not entitled to summary judgment because, on interlocutory appeal, we may not review their arguments challenging the factual disputes identified by the district court.