United States v. Smith, 921 F.3d 708

Tom Smith pleaded guilty in federal district court to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; the government filed a § 851 information identifying a 2004 felony drug conviction.
Smith’s plea agreement and PSR acknowledged two prior state felony drug convictions, including a 2009 Indiana conviction under Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 for "Dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug."
The Probation Office treated Smith as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior controlled-substance offenses, raising his criminal-history category to VI and increasing his Guidelines range.
Smith objected, arguing the Indiana § 35-48-4-1 conviction is broader than the Guidelines’ generic definition of a "controlled substance offense" and thus cannot serve as a predicate offense for career-offender status.
At sentencing the district court overruled the objection, finding the Indiana statute either categorically matches or, if divisible, the record of conviction shows Smith pleaded to possession with intent to deliver (i.e., an element matching the Guidelines).
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: the Indiana statute is divisible and the Shepard-approved record (information and plea colloquy) shows Smith pleaded to the subsection corresponding to possession with intent to deliver, which matches U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith’s prior Indiana conviction under Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 qualifies as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) for career-offender purposes	Smith: § 35-48-4-1 is broader than the Guidelines' definition and thus indivisible; conviction cannot be a predicate	Government: The statute is either categorically within the Guidelines or, if divisible, the record shows Smith pleaded to the delivery subsection that matches the generic definition	The court held the statute is divisible and the Shepard-approved record shows Smith pleaded to possession with intent to deliver; conviction qualifies as a controlled substance offense, so career-offender enhancement applies

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (guidance on categorical vs. modified categorical approach and divisibility)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limited record documents for modified categorical inquiry)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (if statutory alternatives carry different punishments they are elements)
United States v. Tate, 822 F.3d 370 (7th Cir. de novo review of Guidelines predicate determinations)
Madkins v. United States, 866 F.3d 1136 (definition of "distribute"/"deliver" equivalence)
Lopez v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 484 (earlier 7th Cir. application of modified categorical approach to the Indiana statute)