United States v. Thomas Norman, 935 F.3d 232

On December 7, 2016, law‑enforcement officers arrested Thomas Norman on a warrant while he was in a black Camry; a passenger, Princess Harrison, was also arrested after officers found a bag of white powder in her hair which she admitted was cocaine.
Officers observed cash and a small tied baggie on the car’s center console in plain view; a later search of the vehicle uncovered additional packages of cocaine and ecstasy and a firearm under the driver’s seat.
A federal grand jury indicted Norman on three counts: felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
At a bench trial the district court denied Norman’s motion to suppress the vehicle evidence and convicted him on all counts.
At sentencing the Probation Office applied a six‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on a prior § 846 conspiracy conviction for cocaine/cocaine base; Norman received an effective Guidelines range of 144–165 months and was sentenced to 156 months.
Norman appealed, challenging (1) denial of the suppression motion and (2) the six‑level Guidelines enhancement for a prior § 846 conspiracy conviction.

Issue	Norman's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Validity of the warrantless vehicle search	Evidence was fruit of illegal search; suppression required	Search was lawful as incident to Harrison’s arrest (and plain view)	Affirmed: search valid as incident to Harrison’s arrest given drugs in her hair and contraband in plain view (Arizona v. Gant applied)
Whether § 846 conspiracy conviction qualifies as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A)	§ 846 conspiracy is broader than generic conspiracy (no overt‑act element) and thus cannot serve as the predicate	The Guidelines (commentary) include conspiracy; prior circuit decisions assumed § 846 qualifies	Court: categorical approach controls; § 846 conspiracy is a categorical mismatch to generic conspiracy (error to apply enhancement), but error was not plain at trial due to prior circuit precedent, so no reversal
Standard of review for sentencing enhancement (procedural posture)	Error should be reviewed de novo	Government notes Norman failed to object; review is for plain error	Held: plain‑error review applies; defendant fails to show error was plain at time of sentencing, so enhancement stands

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest valid when evidence relevant to arrest might be in vehicle)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach for defining generic offense)
United States v. McCollum, 885 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2018) (held conspiracy that lacks overt‑act element is broader than generic conspiracy for Guidelines purposes)
United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876 (4th Cir. 1994) (earlier panel language assuming § 846 conspiracy qualifies for career‑offender treatment; discussed as non‑binding dictum by majority)
Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (plain‑error review standards)
United States v. Bullette, 854 F.3d 261 (standard of review for suppression factual findings)