969 F.3d 583
6th Cir.2020Background
- In 2017 Darius Thomas pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing a heroin mixture under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
- Thomas had prior Michigan convictions for delivery of heroin and possession with intent to deliver marijuana.
- The district court treated those priors as controlled-substance offenses and designated Thomas a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, yielding a 140–175 month range; Thomas received 140 months.
- Thomas did not object to the career-offender designation at sentencing, so the court reviewed the claim for plain error on appeal.
- Central legal question: whether Michigan’s delivery and possession-with-intent statutes qualify as "controlled-substance offenses" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 for career-offender purposes.
- The Sixth Circuit concluded Michigan’s statutory language ("actual, constructive, or attempted transfer") aligns with the federal definitions of distribution/possession-with-intent and thus the priors qualify; Havis was distinguishable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas’s Michigan priors qualify as controlled-substance offenses under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 for career-offender status | Michigan delivery/possession-with-intent cover attempt crimes; under United States v. Havis, attempt crimes do not qualify | Michigan delivery and possession-with-intent match federal definitions of distribution/possession-with-intent ("actual, constructive, or attempted transfer") and therefore qualify | Court affirmed: Michigan priors qualify; career-offender designation stands; Havis is distinguishable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (addressed when attempted-delivery statutes may not qualify as controlled-substance offenses)
- United States v. Garth, 965 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2020) (explained Michigan’s "actual, constructive, or attempted transfer" encompasses attempted transfer that qualifies as delivery)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (explained categorical approach: a statute is disqualified if its least culpable conduct falls outside the guideline definition)
- United States v. House, 872 F.3d 748 (6th Cir. 2017) (plain-error review applies when defendant fails to object at sentencing)