United States v. Crooks, 997 F.3d 1273

Background

In 2002 Crooks was convicted at a bench trial of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and the court found he personally distributed 567 grams. He was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment.
The PSR labeled Crooks a career offender under USSG §4B1.1, but that designation did not raise his guidelines range because his base offense level was higher; the guidelines range was calculated as 360 months to life. Crooks did not object at sentencing.
The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised the crack thresholds that triggered enhanced statutory sentences; the First Step Act (2018) made those Fair Sentencing Act changes retroactive for eligible defendants via §404 motions.
Crooks moved under the First Step Act in 2019 seeking a reduction to time-served (~260 months), arguing (1) his offense of conviction is a "covered offense" because §841(b)(1)(A)(iii) was modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, and (2) his career-offender status should be vacated because a §846 conspiracy is not a "controlled substance offense."
The district court denied relief, finding Crooks ineligible and holding his career-offender designation unreviewable; on appeal the government conceded eligibility.
The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding Crooks eligible because eligibility depends on the offense of conviction (not underlying conduct), and that the career-offender designation was reviewable and was improperly applied to Crooks (§846 does not require an overt act). The case was remanded for recalculation under the 2001 Guidelines without the career-offender enhancement and for consideration of §3553(a) factors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crooks is eligible under the First Step Act §404(a)	Crooks: eligibility is determined by the offense of conviction; his §841(b)(1)(A)(iii) conviction was modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, so he is a "covered offense"	District court (initially): ineligible because focus on underlying conduct; gov. later conceded eligibility on appeal	Eligibility turns on the offense of conviction, not underlying conduct; Crooks is eligible
Whether the court may review and vacate a career-offender designation on a First Step Act motion	Crooks: designation is reviewable and erroneous because §846 conspiracy is not a "controlled substance offense" under the Guideline (requires overt act)	District court: career-offender status was unreviewable and thus sentence would remain unchanged	Career-offender status is reviewable on First Step Act motions and Crooks was improperly designated because §846 does not require an overt act
Remedy and resentencing scope	Crooks: district court should recalculate Guidelines (using the 2001 edition used at original sentencing) without the career-offender enhancement and then consider §3553(a)	District court: declined review so no recalculation; on appeal gov. did not oppose recalculation	Remand for recalculation under the 2001 Guidelines without the career-offender enhancement and consideration of §3553(a) factors

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Brown, 974 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act allows challenging erroneous career-offender designations)
United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (interpreting "covered offense" to depend on the offense of conviction)
United States v. Shaw, 957 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2020) (construction of First Step Act eligibility language)
United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 836 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2016) (generic definition of "conspiracy" requires an overt act for guideline application)
United States v. Karam, 496 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2007) (career-offender classification reviewed de novo)
United States v. Mannie, 971 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2020) (district court may consider §3553(a) factors on First Step Act resentencing)
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (application of Fair Sentencing Act to post‑effective-date sentences)
Shabani v. United States, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) (§846 conspiracy does not require proof of an overt act)