United States v. Rashun Suncar, 142 F.4th 259

Rashun Suncar was convicted in federal court for distributing fentanyl and challenged the application of a career offender enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
The enhancement was based on two prior Pennsylvania state convictions for delivery of a controlled substance under 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30).
Suncar argued that the Pennsylvania statute is categorically broader than the federal “controlled substance offense” definition, as it allegedly covers offers to sell and attempted transfers of drugs.
The district court applied the enhancement, citing binding Third Circuit precedent, but imposed a below-guidelines sentence.
On appeal, Suncar argued the enhancement was improperly applied because his prior convictions do not qualify as predicate offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 780-113(a)(30) criminalizes offers to sell and is broader than guidelines	Statute criminalizes offers to sell, not covered by the guidelines	Statute does not include offers to sell	Statute does not criminalize offers to sell
Whether "attempted transfer" in § 780-113(a)(30) is an inchoate offense broader than guidelines	Attempted transfer = attempt, which is not a controlled substance offense	Attempted transfer is a completed distribution offense	Attempted transfer is not overly broad; enhancement appropriate
Applicability of non-precedential state case law (Walker) to federal guideline analysis	Walker supports overbreadth; should be followed	Walker is non-precedential and contradicted by higher authority	Walker not persuasive; plain language & precedent control
Whether district court erred in applying Sentencing Guidelines enhancement	Enhancement inapplicable due to statute’s overbreadth	Enhancement proper due to controlling precedent and statute	District court correctly applied the enhancement

United States v. Glass, 904 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2018) (held that Pennsylvania's statute does not include offers to sell and is not overbroad under guidelines)
United States v. Groves, 65 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2023) (explained the categorical approach and found similar statutes not overbroad)
United States v. Campbell, 22 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2022) (distinguished between inchoate attempt and completed distribution offenses)
United States v. Dawson, 32 F.4th 254 (3d Cir. 2022) (held that Pennsylvania’s statute is not categorically overbroad; an "attempted transfer" is a completed offense)
United States v. Johnson, 945 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2019) (rejected arguments to read “offers to sell” into statutes without explicit inclusion)