United States v. Melvin Gordon, 838 F.3d 597

In Dec. 2014 Gordon was stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint; agents found two undocumented Mexican nationals hidden in his trunk and 1.13 kg of marijuana concealed in rear panels. Gordon declined to speak without counsel.
A federal grand jury indicted Gordon on two counts of transporting undocumented aliens (8 U.S.C. §1324) and one count of possession with intent to distribute <50 kg marijuana (21 U.S.C. §841); he pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement.
The PSR grouped offenses and calculated a combined adjusted offense level of 18, applied a §4B1.1 career‑offender label (criminal history category VI), reduced three levels for acceptance, yielding an offense level 15 and a Guidelines range of 41–51 months (CHC VI).
The district court sentenced Gordon to 41 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release, imposing special conditions including drug/alcohol treatment, anger management, and participation in a mental health program “as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer.”
Gordon appealed, contesting the career‑offender application (arguing §4B1.1(b) should not apply when the table’s offense level isn’t used) and later challenged the mental‑health special condition (no objection at sentencing; plain‑error review).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a case "arises under" §4B1.1(b) when the district court applies an "otherwise applicable" offense level greater than the §4B1.1 table level	Government (and courts applying §4B1.1) argued that qualifying under (a) places the case under (b), so CHC VI applies even if the table’s offense level is not used	Gordon argued that §4B1.1(b) should apply only when the table produces the controlling offense level; if the district applies a higher otherwise applicable level, (b) does not apply and CHC VI is improper	Affirmed: qualifying under (a) means the case is under (b) (absent the §4B1.1(c) carve‑out); thus CHC VI was properly assigned despite use of a higher otherwise applicable offense level
Whether the district court plainly erred by imposing a supervised‑release special condition requiring participation in mental‑health treatment without record support	Gordon argued (on appeal) the condition lacked factual support, was unnecessary given absence of mental‑health history, and imposed financial and liberty burdens; he sought vacatur	Government did not defend the condition and asked the court to vacate it as unsupported by the record	Reversed as to the special condition: court vacated the mental‑health program requirement as unsupported by the PSR/record and thus plainly erroneous; sentence otherwise affirmed

United States v. Marseille, 377 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (career‑offender clause (b) applies whenever defendant qualifies under (a))
United States v. Miller, 395 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir.) (agreeing that §4B1.1(b) mandates CHC VI for qualifying career offenders)
United States v. Waters, 648 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.) (upholding assignment of CHC VI when otherwise applicable offense level exceeded the §4B1.1 table level)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of appellate review for sentences: procedural and substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445 (5th Cir.) (standards for supervised‑release conditions and §3553(a) nexus requirements)