United States v. Miller, 480 F.Supp.3d 614

Emerson Miller pleaded guilty in 2019 to federal narcotics and firearms counts; his PSR treated him as a career offender based on two prior felony controlled-substance convictions (2008 marijuana; 2010 cocaine‑base).
Career-offender status (U.S.S.G. §4B1.1) and a §2K2.1 enhancement depended on whether the 2008 Pennsylvania conviction qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(b).
Pennsylvania's statutory definition of "marihuana" criminalizes all Cannabis sativa L. forms and contains no THC‑concentration exclusion for hemp; Pennsylvania lab testing historically detects presence of THC but not THC percentage.
The 2018 Farm Bill amended the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to exclude "hemp" (Cannabis with ≤0.3% Δ9‑THC) from the federal definition of "marihuana."
The court applied the modified categorical approach (Shepard documents confirmed the 2008 conviction was for possession with intent to deliver marijuana) and held that §4B1.2(b)'s "controlled substance" is defined exclusively by the federal CSA schedules; because Pennsylvania law criminalizes hemp conduct that the federal CSA now excludes, the 2008 PA conviction is broader than the federal analogue and cannot serve as a §4B1.2(b) predicate.
Result: court sustained Miller's objections, removed the career‑offender classification and the related §2K2.1(a)(2) enhancement, producing a substantially lower Guidelines range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (United States)	Defendant's Argument (Miller)	Held
Whether the term "controlled substance" in U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(b) is governed by the federal CSA schedules	§4B1.2(b) does not expressly import the federal CSA; ordinary meaning or current Guidelines usage suffices	Term should be defined by the federal CSA schedules to ensure uniform federal sentencing	Court held §4B1.2(b) refers exclusively to substances listed under the federal CSA schedules
Whether Miller's 2008 PA conviction for possession with intent to deliver marijuana qualifies as a §4B1.2(b) predicate	Look to law at time of prior conviction and policy/legislative amendments (2016 PA hemp act) show no realistic probability PA would have prosecuted hemp; 2008 federal definition should control	PA's statutory definition criminalizes hemp (no THC threshold); after the 2018 Farm Bill federal law excludes hemp, so the PA offense is broader and cannot qualify	Court held PA marijuana statute is broader than the federal definition (post‑2018 CSA); the 2008 conviction does not qualify as a controlled‑substance predicate; career‑offender and §2K2.1(a)(2) enhancement removed

United States v. Glass, 904 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2018) (analyzing §780‑113(a)(30) as a career‑offender predicate and using federal definitions to compare elements)
United States v. Dahl, 833 F.3d 345 (3d Cir. 2016) (state conviction cannot qualify if elements are broader than guideline definition)
United States v. Townsend, 897 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2018) ("controlled substance" in Guidelines defined by federal CSA schedules)
United States v. Leal‑Vega, 680 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (defining guideline drug terms by federal CSA for uniformity)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisibility and modified categorical approach principles)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach for comparing state elements with federal generic crimes)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (distinguishing categorical vs. modified categorical approaches)