United States v. James Clark, III, 46 F.4th 404

James Clark III pled guilty in federal court to possession with intent to distribute heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine; sentencing considered a career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1.
Clark had two prior Tennessee felony convictions (2014) for possession with intent to sell/deliver marijuana; at that time state law criminalized hemp as marijuana.
Between the prior convictions and Clark’s federal sentencing, the 2018 Farm Bill (federal) and later Tennessee law excluded hemp (Cannabis sativa with ≤0.3% THC) from the definition of marijuana.
Clark argued those prior convictions could have been for hemp and therefore no longer qualify as “controlled substance offenses” for the career-offender enhancement if schedules are assessed at sentencing.
The district court applied a time-of-conviction rule, treated Clark as a career offender, calculated a Guidelines range of 151–188 months, and sentenced him to 151 months; Clark appealed.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that whether a prior conviction is a “controlled substance offense” is determined by the law in effect at the time of the prior conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “controlled substance” for §4B1.1 predicates is defined by drug schedules at time of prior conviction or at time of current sentencing	Clark: use time-of-sentencing; hemp delisted before sentencing so prior marijuana convictions may not be predicates	Government: use time-of-conviction; hemp was a controlled substance when prior convictions occurred, so they qualify	Time-of-conviction rule: prior-offense status judged by law in effect when the prior conviction occurred

McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (held recidivist enhancements require assessing prior offenses under law in effect at time of conviction).
Mallett v. United States, 334 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2003) (interpreted U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(c) to assess prior controlled-substance felony status as of date guilt was established).
Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) (in immigration context, used state drug schedules at time of conviction to determine whether offense related to a controlled substance).
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (established the categorical approach for comparing state offenses to generic federal definitions).
United States v. Garth, 965 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2020) (applied three-step categorical approach to predicate-offense analysis).
United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (review of whether a prior conviction qualifies as a Guidelines predicate is de novo; clarified categorical-approach application).