97 F.4th 532
7th Cir.2024Background
- Keith White, while serving a state sentence in Indiana, operated a heroin distribution ring in prison, resulting in several inmate overdoses and triggering a federal investigation.
- White pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy to distribute heroin charges; this appeal relates to the sentencing phase.
- His prior Indiana cocaine dealing convictions led to a career-offender enhancement under federal sentencing guidelines, increasing his sentencing range.
- Previously, White succeeded in vacating a separate statutory enhancement, but his career-offender status under the Guidelines remained due to Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.
- At resentencing, White challenged the use of Application Note 1 based on new Supreme Court precedent and the “major questions doctrine.”
- The district court, bound by precedent, rejected White’s arguments and applied the career-offender enhancement; White received a below-guidelines sentence and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Application Note 1 improperly expand the guideline to include inchoate offenses? | The guideline’s text is clear, excludes inchoate offenses like conspiracy; commentary should not be deferred to. | Application Note 1 has been treated as authoritative circuit-wide, including inchoate offenses as within the guideline definition. | Existing circuit precedent applies; Application Note 1 is valid and includes inchoate offenses. |
| Did Kisor v. Wilkie undermine deference to Application Note 1? | Kisor narrows deference to agency interpretations; precedent should be reconsidered. | Kisor did not disturb the Supreme Court’s Stinson framework or circuit precedent. | Kisor does not overrule or modify Stinson; no basis to depart from circuit precedent. |
| Should the major questions doctrine bar Application Note 1 under West Virginia v. EPA? | Applying Application Note 1 raises a major question that requires clear congressional authorization. | The guideline commentary does not present a major question and fits within the Commission’s established statutory authority. | Major questions doctrine does not apply; Sentencing Commission acted within its authority. |
| Did subsequent amendments to § 4B1.2 affect the result? | Not central to this appeal (focused on older guideline version). | Amendment clarifies and codifies existing practice but not retroactive. | Amendment noted but does not alter the outcome of this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative unless inconsistent with the guideline)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (Refines standards for judicial deference to agency interpretations)
- United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (Statutory enhancement requires categorical match between state and federal drug definitions)
- United States v. Smith, 989 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2021) (Continues deference to Application Note 1 in this circuit)
- West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) (Major questions doctrine limits agency authority on issues of great economic and political significance)
- United States v. Damerville, 27 F.3d 254 (7th Cir. 1994) (Commission’s authority extends to including inchoate offenses in career-offender guideline)