United States v. Kevin Coleman, 705 F. App'x 454

Coleman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >500g cocaine; convicted and proceeded to sentencing.
Presentence report classified Coleman as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1 based on two prior Tennessee controlled-substance felonies: a 2006 Class E marijuana-with-intent-to-sell conviction and a 2012 Class B cocaine-with-intent conviction.
The guidelines career-offender designation produced an initial range of 262–327 months after adjustments; the district court granted a downward variance to criminal-history category IV, yielding a 210–262 month range.
The district court sentenced Coleman to 210 months imprisonment and 8 years supervised release.
On appeal Coleman argued (1) the Class E marijuana conviction could not be a predicate because he did not serve more than one year and (2) using that conviction as a predicate violated equal protection because similar conduct in other states (e.g., California) would not qualify.
Coleman did not object to career-offender classification at sentencing (acknowledged criteria but argued it overstated history); appellate review was for plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Coleman’s 2006 Class E marijuana conviction qualifies as a "controlled substance offense" predicate for career-offender status	The conviction should not qualify because Coleman did not serve a custodial sentence in excess of one year (he received a suspended sentence and probation)	The guideline counts prior felony convictions if the offense is punishable by >1 year under state law, regardless of actual sentence imposed	Affirmed: conviction qualifies because Tennessee Class E felony is punishable by >1 year and commentary treats prior felony convictions as such regardless of actual sentence
Whether using a state offense that receives lesser punishment in another jurisdiction violates equal protection	Applying the career-offender predicate here is unconstitutional because identical conduct in another state might not meet the >1-year punishability threshold, creating arbitrary disparities	Different state definitions/punishments do not violate equal protection merely because enhancements turn on state-law classifications	Rejected: disparate state punishments do not create an equal-protection violation under the Guidelines

United States v. Prater, 766 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.) (plain-error review principles)
United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445 (6th Cir.) (plain-error review in sentencing context)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (elements of plain-error review)
United States v. Bregnard, 951 F.2d 457 (1st Cir. 1991) (rejecting equal-protection challenge based on interstate variations in state sentencing)
United States v. Maynie, 257 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2001) (rejecting equal-protection argument where another state’s law would not have produced a predicate offense)
United States v. Doxey, 833 F.3d 692 (6th Cir.) (addressing similar challenges to Guidelines enhancements)