United States v. Anthony Myers, 56 F.4th 595

Background

Anthony Myers was convicted in 2020 of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The PSR asserted an ACCA enhancement based on two violent-felony priors and a 2003 Missouri conviction for sale of cocaine under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.211 (2000).
The ACCA imposes a 15‑year mandatory minimum when a § 922(g) defendant has three prior violent‑felony and/or serious‑drug‑offense convictions; a state drug offense qualifies only if it involves a “controlled substance” as defined by federal law (categorical approach).
Myers objected, arguing his 2003 Missouri cocaine conviction did not qualify as a “serious drug offense” because Missouri’s schedule criminalized broader forms of “isomers” than the federal Schedule II definition.
The district court sustained Myers’s objection, finding Missouri’s 2000 Schedule II listing for cocaine swept in positional isomers (beyond the federal definition, which limits cocaine isomers to optical and geometric forms), and sentenced him to 120 months (the statutory maximum without ACCA).
The Eighth Circuit (majority) affirmed, applying the categorical approach and Missouri rules of statutory construction to conclude the Missouri definition was unambiguously broader than the federal definition, so the prior conviction is not an ACCA predicate.
Judge Loken dissented, arguing Missouri adopted the federal listing (and Congress’s 1984/1986 amendments) such that Missouri’s schedule should be read to incorporate the federal isomer limitation and that the realistic‑probability test undermines any overbreadth concern.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Myers’s 2003 Missouri cocaine conviction is a qualifying ACCA "serious drug offense" under the categorical approach	Government: Missouri cocaine conviction qualifies because the statute criminalized cocaine (a Schedule II substance) as a controlled substance for ACCA purposes.	Myers: Missouri’s cocaine definition included all "isomers," sweeping beyond the federal definition (which limits to optical and geometric isomers), so it is not a categorical match.	Affirmed district court: Missouri schedule unambiguously included positional isomers and therefore is broader than the federal definition; conviction is not an ACCA predicate.
Whether courts should consider Missouri intent, federal amendments, or the "realistic probability" test to avoid a finding of categorical overbreadth	Government: (implicit) federal conformity and practice justify treating the state listing as a federal‑equivalent Schedule II listing.	Myers/Loken (dissent): Missouri’s adoption aimed to conform to federal listing; little realistic probability Missouri would prosecute positional isomers; courts should avoid an interpretation that defeats legislative purpose.	Majority: Text of Missouri schedule is clear; where unambiguous, courts apply plain meaning rather than extratextual intent or realistic‑probability considerations. Dissent: would reach opposite result.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Oliver, 987 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2021) (explaining categorical approach for state drug convictions under ACCA)
United States v. Vanoy, 957 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2020) (statute that sweeps more broadly than federal definition cannot qualify as ACCA predicate)
United States v. Owen, 51 F.4th 292 (8th Cir. 2022) (analyzing state drug‑schedule text and concluding Minnesota schedule proscribed broader isomer language)
United States v. Clark, 1 F.4th 632 (8th Cir. 2021) (placing burden on government to prove prior conviction qualifies as ACCA predicate)
United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (articulating the "realistic probability" rule when assessing categorical overbreadth)
Perez v. United States, 46 F.4th 691 (8th Cir. 2022) (for ACCA purposes, compare state schedule at time of state offense to federal schedule at time of federal offense)
State v. Greene, 785 S.W.2d 574 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (Missouri court treating all isomers of cocaine as prescribed)
State v. James, 796 S.W.2d 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (Missouri court rejecting an isomer‑distinction defense)