United States v. Minor, 121 F.4th 1085

Edgar Hermosillo Minor was sentenced for drug trafficking offenses in 2022 and received a career-offender enhancement based on three prior federal marijuana convictions from 2000 and 2010.
The presentence report calculated his sentence using the Sentencing Guidelines, applying the career-offender enhancement which elevated his sentencing range.
Minor argued that a 2018 amendment to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) excluded hemp from the definition of marijuana, meaning his previous convictions should not qualify as "controlled substance offenses" under the current Guidelines.
The district court used the definition of marijuana in effect at the time of Minor’s prior convictions and applied the enhancement, but varied downward in sentencing.
On appeal, Minor argued the Sentencing Guidelines require courts to use the definition of "controlled substance" that is in effect at the time of current sentencing, not at the time of the prior convictions.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and addressed whether the sentencing error was harmless.

Issue	Minor's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Which definition of "controlled substance" applies for the career-offender enhancement?	The CSA definition in effect at the time of current sentencing should apply, due to post-2018 exclusion of hemp from "marijuana."	The CSA definition at the time of prior convictions should apply, reflecting the law when the convictions occurred.	The definition in effect at the time of current sentencing controls; career-offender enhancement did not apply.
Was the district court’s error in applying the career-offender enhancement harmless?	The error potentially impacted the sentence imposed.	The sentence variance showed the range did not influence the outcome.	The error was not harmless, as the record did not show the sentence would have been the same without the enhancement.

United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016) (categorical approach for predicate offenses under the Guidelines)
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (categorical approach in comparing elements of offenses)
United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2015) (tied Guidelines definition of controlled substance to CSA definition)
McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (time of conviction controls for certain ACCA provisions, distinguished here)
Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101 (2024) (ACCA “serious drug offense” analysis hinges on definition at time of the offense, not current law)