United States v. Kareem Currence, 20-7648

In 2006 Currence was convicted of: Count 1 — possession with intent to distribute <5 g cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); Count 2 — same offense within 1000 feet of an elementary school (21 U.S.C. § 860).
The district court determined Currence was eligible for a First Step Act sentence reduction, vacated Count 2 to remedy a double jeopardy problem, and reduced the Count 1 sentence from 240 to 220 months.
Currence appealed, raising: (1) that Count 1 is invalid under Arizona v. Gant; (2) that his career‑offender designation is invalid; and (3) that the district court should have recalculated his Guidelines range after vacating Count 2.
The Fourth Circuit declined to consider the Gant challenge because Currence never raised it below and such a challenge cannot be brought in a First Step Act § 3582(c)(2) motion but must be pursued via an authorized successive § 2255 (or, in narrow circumstances, § 2241).
The court rejected Currence’s challenge to his career‑offender status, finding his prior Virginia convictions remain controlled‑substance offenses and thus sustain the enhancement; consequently, applicable Guidelines amendments did not lower his range.
The Fourth Circuit agreed the district court erred by not recalculating the Guidelines range for Count 1 after vacating Count 2 (because the statutory maximums differ), vacated the remaining sentence on Count 1, and remanded for further proceedings. Currence remains on supervised release, so the appeal is not moot.

Issue	Currence's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Validity of Count 1 under Arizona v. Gant	Gant renders the search/conviction invalid	Issue not raised below; must be pursued by § 2255/§ 2241, not a First Step Act motion	Court refused to consider Gant on appeal and rejected the challenge for lack of authorization to bring successive § 2255
Procedural vehicle for Gant claim	Gant challenge can be raised via sentence‑reduction proceeding	First Step Act motion is improper vehicle; successive § 2255 (or § 2241) is required	Court held such challenges must be raised in an authorized successive § 2255 or § 2241 and Currence had no authorization
Career‑offender designation	Prior Virginia convictions no longer qualify as controlled‑substance offenses	Prior Virginia convictions categorically qualify and support career‑offender status	Court affirmed career‑offender designation (citing binding Fourth Circuit precedent)
Recalculation of Guidelines after vacating Count 2	District should have recalculated Count 1 Guidelines after vacating Count 2	District relied on prior combined range and did not show recalculation	Court vacated the remaining Count 1 sentence and remanded because the district court failed to recalculate the Guidelines range and explain its decision

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (search‑incident‑to‑arrest rule limits vehicle searches after recent occupant is not unsecured and within reaching distance)
Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681 (4th Cir. 2016) (issues raised first on appeal are generally forfeited absent extraordinary circumstances)
United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671 (4th Cir. 2004) (constitutional challenges to convictions must generally be raised in a § 2255 motion)
In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (limited circumstances where § 2241 may be used to collaterally attack federal convictions)
United States v. Ward, 972 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 2020) (Virginia § 18.2‑248 convictions categorically qualify as controlled‑substance offenses for career‑offender enhancement)
United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020) (district court must recalculate Guidelines when an erroneous enhancement is removed)
United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) (vacatur required where district court’s explanation for sentence is inadequate)
United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61 (4th Cir. 2018) (ongoing supervised release preserves live controversy for appeal)