United States v. Matthew Elder
900 F.3d 491
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Matthew Elder convicted in 2015 of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; at sentencing the Government sought enhanced mandatory minima under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on two prior Arizona drug convictions (1997 paraphernalia; 1999 possession of equipment/chemicals to manufacture dangerous drugs).
- On initial appeal the Seventh Circuit held the 1997 paraphernalia conviction did not qualify as a felony drug offense under 21 U.S.C. § 802(44) and remanded for resentencing focused on the 1999 Arizona conviction. United States v. Elder (Elder I).
- At resentencing the district court treated the 1999 Arizona conviction as a qualifying prior felony drug offense, resulting in a 20-year statutory minimum; it calculated Guidelines 324–405 months and imposed 260 months.
- Elder argued the court should apply the categorical approach (Taylor/Mathis) and that Arizona’s definition of "dangerous drug" is broader than the federal list in § 802(44), so the 1999 conviction cannot categorically qualify; he also argued the Government produced no record evidence proving the predicate drug.
- The Seventh Circuit held the categorical approach applies to § 841(b)(1)(A)/§ 802(44), concluded the Arizona statute is categorically broader (it lists substances—propylhexedrine, scopolamine—not in § 802(44)), and therefore the 1999 conviction cannot serve as a § 802(44) predicate.
- Because the error lowered Elder’s statutory minimum (20 → 10 years) and it was unclear whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence, the court ordered a limited remand under Paladino for the district judge to state whether it would reimpose the same sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 841(b)(1)(A)/§ 802(44) require the categorical or circumstance-specific approach | Elder: categorical approach (Taylor); compare statutory elements only; Arizona statute is broader so conviction does not qualify | Govt: even if categorical, statute may be divisible so modified categorical approach can be used to consult limited record showing the underlying drug | Court: categorical approach applies; modified categorical approach unavailable because AZ § 13-3407(A)(3) is indivisible; conviction does not categorically match § 802(44) |
| Whether the 1999 Arizona conviction qualifies as a "felony drug offense" under § 802(44) | Elder: Arizona's "dangerous drug" definition sweeps in substances not covered by § 802(44); so it cannot qualify categorically | Govt: could use modified categorical approach or proffered records to show the conviction related to a federal-listed drug (e.g., methamphetamine) | Court: Arizona statute is broader (includes propylhexedrine, scopolamine); conviction cannot serve as § 802(44) predicate |
| Whether the district court’s use of the 20-year minimum was harmless error | Elder: error affected statutory range and could have affected sentencing; not harmless | Govt: any error was harmless because Guidelines range was same and court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence | Court: not clearly harmless; limited remand under Paladino required for district court to state whether it would reimpose same sentence |
| Whether the sentencing court could rely on facts outside the record of conviction to identify the substance involved | Elder: Shepard/Mathis bars relying on underlying facts; only elements or limited Shepard documents may be used | Govt: later-found charging document shows meth-related charging info | Court: cannot rely on underlying conduct; categorical rule bars consulting such evidence here; declined to consider the Government’s belated charging paper on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (establishes categorical approach for predicate-offense analysis)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarifies elements v. means and limits use of modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explains divisible v. indivisible statutes and proper use of modified categorical approach)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (describes circumstance-specific approach and contrasts with categorical approach)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits record materials consultable under the modified categorical approach)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (acknowledges prior conviction as narrow exception to jury factfinding rule)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases penalty must be found by a jury)
- Paladino v. United States, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (authorizes limited remand to determine harmlessness of sentencing error)
- United States v. Elder, 840 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (prior Seventh Circuit decision remanding initial life sentence determination)