United States v. Anthony Palos, 978 F.3d 373

Anthony Palos pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after police found drugs, paraphernalia, and a firearm at his home; the firearm was later confirmed stolen.
Palos had two prior state cocaine-trafficking convictions (2002 and 2010); the 2010 conviction was under Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.03(A)(1) for "sell or offer to sell."
The district court treated both prior convictions as qualifying "controlled substance offenses" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 and applied a base offense level of 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2).
The district court imposed a two-level enhancement for possession of a stolen firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) and a four-level enhancement for possession in connection with drug trafficking, then sentenced Palos to 63 months after a downward variance.
On appeal Palos argued (1) his 2010 conviction does not qualify as a controlled substance offense post-Havis and (2) the stolen-firearm enhancement requires knowledge that the gun was stolen. The Government conceded the Cavazos reading of Havis controls the first issue; the court addressed both issues.

Issue	Palos's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the 2010 Ohio "offer to sell" cocaine conviction qualifies as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2	The 2010 conviction is an "offer to sell" (an attempt/transfer attempt) and, per Havis, attempt crimes are excluded from § 4B1.2	The conviction should count as a completed controlled-substance offense	Followed Cavazos/Havis: the "offer to sell" conviction does not categorically qualify; remand for resentencing on base offense level
Whether U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) (stolen firearm enhancement) requires the defendant to know the firearm was stolen	The enhancement requires proof that Palos knew the gun was stolen	The enhancement is a strict-liability Sentencing Guideline provision and applies regardless of defendant's knowledge	Affirmed: enhancement applies absent a knowledge requirement (Murphy remains controlling)

United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (Guidelines commentary cannot override clear Guideline text; attempt crimes excluded from § 4B1.2 definition)
United States v. Cavazos, 950 F.3d 329 (6th Cir. 2020) (applied Havis to hold "offer to sell" statutes too broad to categorically qualify as controlled-substance predicates)
United States v. Evans, 699 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 2012) (treated "offer to sell" as an attempt-to-transfer offense)
United States v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 1996) (upheld stolen-firearm enhancement as not requiring mens rea)
United States v. Roxborough, 99 F.3d 212 (6th Cir. 1996) (vacated enhancement where no nexus proved between enhancement conduct and conviction; discussed scope of strict liability)
United States v. Sands, 948 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2020) (held no knowledge requirement for enhancement for altered serial number)
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (established mens rea presumption for § 922(g) convictions; court explained distinction between statutory mens rea and Guideline enhancements)
Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009) (discussed punishing unintended consequences of unlawful acts)