United States v. Troy Woodruff, 735 F.3d 445

Defendant Troy Woodruff pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment.
The PSR treated two prior Tennessee felony convictions (aggravated burglary and facilitation of sale of cocaine) as predicates, yielding a base offense level of 24 under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(2).
The district court sustained an objection to the Armed Career Criminal classification but counted the Tennessee facilitation conviction as a “controlled-substance offense” for Guidelines purposes and applied the higher base level.
Woodruff did not object at sentencing to the PSR’s characterization of facilitation as a controlled-substance offense, so plain-error review applies on appeal.
The Sixth Circuit majority held that Tennessee facilitation (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403) is not a controlled-substance offense under USSG § 4B1.2(b), but the district court’s error was not "plain" under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b), so Woodruff’s sentence was affirmed.
The concurrence (Judge Stranch) agreed facilitation is not a controlled-substance offense but would have found the error plain and would remand for resentencing; she noted prior circuit authority (Wicks, Spikes) supporting that view.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Woodruff)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Tennessee facilitation of drug sale is a “controlled-substance offense” under USSG § 4B1.2(b)	Facilitation lacks the intent elements of aiding/abetting, conspiracy, or attempt and thus is not a controlled-substance offense	Facilitation can be treated as a controlled-substance offense for guideline enhancement	The Sixth Circuit: facilitation under Tennessee law is not a controlled-substance offense
Standard of review for unpreserved objection to PSR classification	Plain-error review applies; Woodruff argues the error affected his sentence	Government argues error was not plain or preserved	Court: plain-error review applies; error was not plain at sentencing or on appeal, so no relief
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to PSR	Woodruff contends counsel should have objected	Government: no developed record on counsel’s reasons; general rule disfavors raising effectiveness on direct appeal	Court declined to address ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal due to undeveloped record
Remedy if error established	Woodruff seeks resentencing because Guidelines misapplied	Government opposes resentencing absent plain error or preserved objection	Majority affirmed sentence; concurrence would remand for resentencing

Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (explaining plain-error four-part test)
United States v. Galloway, 439 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2006) (categorical approach application)
United States v. Rodriguez, 664 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2011) (categorical approach: focus on statutory elements)
James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (considering element-based inclusion for statutory definitions)
United States v. Dolt, 27 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 1994) (solicitation differs from aiding/abetting, conspiracy, attempt)
United States v. Montanez, 442 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2006) (possession conviction lacked distribution intent element for enhancement)
United States v. Liranzo, 944 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1991) (New York facilitation not equivalent to aiding/abetting)
United States v. Pazzanese, 982 F.2d 251 (8th Cir. 1992) (criminal facilitation does not prove requisite mental culpability)
Abuelhawa v. United States, 556 U.S. 816 (clarifying meaning of “facilitate” in 21 U.S.C. § 843(b))
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (describing plain-error doctrine)