United States v. Anthony Wynn, 786 F.3d 339

Anthony Wynn was serving a five‑year supervised release after a 2003 federal conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine base.
In 2014 Wynn admitted to six separate incidents of possessing marijuana while on supervised release; probation filed a revocation petition listing these and other violations.
The probation officer treated the marijuana incidents as Grade B supervised‑release violations because, given Wynn’s prior drug convictions, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) exposed him to an enhanced statutory maximum (>1 year) as a recidivist.
Wynn argued the violations were only Grade C because the baseline federal penalty for simple possession is ≤1 year and that prior‑conviction enhancements (and § 851 notice requirements) could not be considered in grading the violations.
The district court found Wynn’s prior convictions made the marijuana possession punishable by >1 year under § 844(a), classified the violations as Grade B, adopted the 21–27 month advisory range, and sentenced Wynn to 24 months; Wynn appealed.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding prior convictions may be considered in grading supervised‑release violations and that § 851’s notice requirement does not bar such consideration in revocation proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior convictions may be used to determine if supervised‑release drug violations are punishable by >1 year (Grade B)	Wynn: Grade depends on the ‘‘basic’’ statutory penalty (≤1 year); prior‑conviction enhancement and §851 notice cannot be used at revocation	Govt/District Ct: Prior convictions alter the punishability under §844(a), so recidivist enhancement is relevant to grading violations	The court held prior convictions may be considered; the §851 notice rule governs original criminal sentencing, not supervised‑release revocation; violations were Grade B

Carachuri‑Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (§851 notice required before seeking recidivist enhancement in original criminal prosecution)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (standards for reviewing supervised‑release revocation sentences)
United States v. Ward, 770 F.3d 1090 (4th Cir. 2014) (revocation sentencing evaluates breach gravity within conditional liberty)
United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2014) (de novo review for legal questions about Guidelines application)
United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150 (7th Cir. 2001) (Application Note 1 permits consideration of actual conduct and prior offenses affecting punishment)