United States v. Dean Walker, 858 F.3d 196

Defendant Dean Washington Walker, a Jamaican national, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after a prior aggravated-felony conviction and was sentenced to 30 months after a downward variance.
At sentencing the district court applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (2015), based on a 2004 Ohio drug-trafficking conviction under Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.03(A)(2).
The Ohio statute penalizes knowingly preparing for shipment, shipping, transporting, delivering, preparing for distribution, or distributing a controlled substance when the actor knows or has reasonable cause to believe the substance is intended for sale or resale.
The relevant 2015 Guidelines commentary defined “drug trafficking offense” to cover (1) manufacture/import/export/distribution/dispensing/offers to sell and (2) possession with intent to engage in those activities.
Walker challenged only the application of the 16-level enhancement, arguing the Ohio statute lacks a specific-intent element and thus does not categorically qualify as a “drug trafficking offense.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Ohio conviction qualifies categorically as a “drug trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (2015).	Walker: The Guidelines require specific intent for all listed acts; Ohio’s “knowing” mens rea is insufficient, so conviction is at most a generic felony (4-level).	Government: The Guidelines treat (a) distribution-type offenses and (b) possession-with-intent separately; Ohio’s statute criminalizes distribution-type acts with knowledge of intended sale and therefore fits the definition.	Court: Affirmed — the Ohio statute categorically qualifies as a drug trafficking offense; the 16-level enhancement was proper.

United States v. Alfaro, 835 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2016) (describing use of the categorical approach for prior convictions)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (establishing the categorical approach to compare elements of prior offenses)
Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006) (distinguishing trafficking from mere possession)
United States v. Karam, 496 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding Ohio § 2925.03(A)(2) proscribes distribution acts and qualifies as a controlled-substance offense)
United States v. Maroquin-Bran, 587 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding a statute that could cover mere transportation for personal use may fail to categorically qualify)
United States v. Flores-Granados, 783 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2015) (applying the categorical approach to prior convictions)
United States v. Fuentes-Oyervides, 541 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2008) (agreeing that Ohio statute’s listed acts are distribution under the Guidelines)