United States v. Charles Trent, 995 F.3d 1029

Trent was convicted in 2009 of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and sentenced to 120 months plus a ten-year term of supervised release beginning May 2016.
Probation alleged multiple supervised-release violations from January 2019 (variously graded B/C) and a September 2019 incident in which Trent was found with 4.86 grams of cocaine.
Two days before the revocation hearing, Trent stipulated to the September 2019 possession violations but denied intent to distribute; the government agreed not to bring additional firearms- or drug-distribution charges based on the conduct.
The probation officer and the government told the district court that mere possession of a controlled substance constituted a grade A violation under USSG § 7B1.1(a)(1); the court accepted that view and treated the three September 2019 possession violations as grade A.
Based on a criminal-history category VI and three grade A violations, the court calculated a Guidelines range of 51–60 months and imposed 51 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal Trent argued the court misclassified the possession-only violations as grade A; the panel found that mere possession is not a ‘‘controlled substance offense’’ for grade A purposes and reversed for resentencing.

Issue	Trent's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether mere possession of a controlled substance (without intent to distribute) qualifies as a grade A "controlled substance offense" under USSG § 7B1.1(a)(1)	Possession alone is not a grade A controlled-substance offense; he stipulated only to possession, not intent to distribute	Possession here should be treated as grade A; record supports an intent-to-distribute finding	Mere possession, without intent to distribute, is not a grade A "controlled substance offense"; classifying Trent’s stipulation as grade A was error
Whether any error in classification was harmless or preserved (harmless/plain error standard)	He objected to the grade A classification; error required harmless-error review and was not harmless	Argues Trent failed to preserve objection (plain error) and that record supports intent to distribute; alternatively the error was harmless	The court reviewed harmless-error (or would reach same result under plain-error); the government failed to show the error was harmless; resentencing required

United States v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2010) (mere possession does not qualify as a "controlled substance offense" for grade A classification)
United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2009) (procedural-review standard for supervised-release revocation sentencing)
United States v. Dace, 842 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2016) (preservation of Guidelines challenges and harmless-error review)
United States v. Spikes, 543 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2008) (government bears burden to show a Guidelines error was harmless)
United States v. Thomas, 790 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2015) (plain-error framework when objections are not preserved)
United States v. Weems, 517 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2008) (consideration of whether a court would have imposed the same sentence absent an error)