United States v. Justin Brown, 47 F.4th 147

In November 2016 police executed a warrant at Brown’s apartment, found cocaine and a .38 revolver, and arrested him for possession/distribution and being a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Brown pleaded guilty in 2019 to cocaine distribution and the § 922(g) count; he was sentenced in 2021 to concurrent 180-month terms after the district court applied the ACCA’s 15‑year mandatory minimum.
Brown had five prior Pennsylvania felony drug convictions (one cocaine, four marijuana from 2009–2014) that the Government used as ACCA predicates.
After the 2018 Agriculture Improvement Act (the “farm bill”), federal law excluded low‑THC “hemp” from the federal marijuana definition, creating a potential mismatch with Pennsylvania’s unchanged broader marijuana definition.
The central legal question: for the ACCA categorical match, should courts compare the state offense to the federal controlled‑substances schedule as it existed at the time the federal offense was committed (2016) or at federal sentencing (post‑2018)?
The Third Circuit held that courts must look to federal law in effect when the defendant committed the federal offense (2016), applied the saving statute, found the federal and Pennsylvania definitions matched at that time, and affirmed Brown’s ACCA sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Timing for comparing federal and state controlled‑substance definitions for ACCA categorical analysis	Use federal law in effect at sentencing (post‑farm bill); under Guidelines precedent comparison time is sentencing	Use federal law in effect when defendant committed the federal offense; 1 U.S.C. § 109 (saving statute) preserves penalties incurred at time of offense	Court held comparison uses federal law in effect at time of commission of the federal offense; saving statute controls because farm bill did not plainly or impliedly make the change retroactive
Whether the Agriculture Improvement Act (farm bill) made its decriminalization of hemp retroactive (thus removing ACCA predicates)	The Act’s changed federal definition should be applied now to disqualify prior state marijuana convictions	The Act does not expressly or implicitly make the change retroactive; applying it retroactively conflicts with the saving statute and creates unfair line‑drawing	Court held the Act is not retroactive (neither expressly nor by necessary implication); therefore federal penalties and definitions at time of offense govern

Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (interpreting retroactivity question for ameliorative sentencing changes and background rules governing sentencing timing)
Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (saving statute bars application of ameliorative sentencing laws to offenses committed earlier)
McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (state‑law elements assessed as of the time of state conviction for ACCA‑type comparisons)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical approach requires comparing state statute elements to generic federal offense)
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (limits on using modified categorical approach and emphasis on elements‑only comparison)
Martinez v. Attorney General, 906 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2018) (immigration context: compare federal consequences at the time those consequences attached)
United States v. Reevey, 631 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 2010) (saving statute mandates application of penalties in force at time of offense absent clear congressional direction)
United States v. Jackson, 36 F.4th 1294 (11th Cir. 2022) (held comparison time is when defendant committed federal offense; supports notice rationale)
United States v. Hope, 28 F.4th 487 (4th Cir. 2022) (contrasting view: compared to federal law at sentencing under Guidelines‑focused reasoning)