United States v. Vickie Sanders, 909 F.3d 895

Background

Sanders pleaded guilty in federal court (2017) to methamphetamine-related offenses; government sought a 10-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) based on a prior California felony drug conviction.
Her California felony possession conviction dated from 1996 and became final in 1998; the government filed an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851 to rely on that prior conviction.
After Sanders’s guilty plea but before sentencing, a California court reclassified the 1996 conviction as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 (Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18) and she objected to the § 841 enhancement.
The district court overruled Sanders’s objection and imposed concurrent sentences, including 120 months on the primary count (reflecting the ten-year statutory minimum); Sanders appealed.
The Seventh Circuit framed the question as whether a state-court reclassification under Proposition 47 prevents application of the federal § 841(b)(1)(B) recidivist enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a state felony reclassified later as a misdemeanor defeats § 841(b)(1)(B) enhancement	Sanders: reclassification means no prior felony exists, so the ten-year minimum does not apply	Government: enhancement depends on whether a prior felony conviction was final when the federal offense occurred; later state reclassification does not erase that fact	The enhancement applies; federal law looks to the prior conviction's status when it became final, not later state reclassification
Whether federal law must treat reclassified convictions as misdemeanors for sentencing uniformity	Sanders: retroactive state relief should alter federal sentence to avoid arbitrary disparities	Government: Congress defined predicate convictions for § 841 and did not adopt state retroactive relief; national uniformity counsels against deferring to varying state actions	Court: Congress could have provided exceptions but did not; federal law governs and uniform national application supports applying the enhancement
Whether due process requires exclusion of reclassified prior convictions	Sanders: applying enhancement after reclassification violates due process	Government: defendant received notice and opportunity to contest under § 851; sentence based on accurate historical fact	Court: No due-process violation; sentencing relied on accurate, historical conviction that was final when the federal offense occurred
Whether applying enhancement violates Equal Protection / Tenth Amendment federalism principles	Sanders: creates arbitrary classes based on timing and intrudes on state authority to define offenses "for all purposes"	Government: disparity is rational (typical result when penalties change over time); federal sentencing predicates are governed by federal law under Commerce Clause	Court: Rational-basis review satisfied; no Tenth Amendment barrier—the federal statute is within congressional power

Key Cases Cited

Arreola-Castillo v. United States, 889 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2018) (procedures and timing for challenging prior convictions under § 851)
United States v. Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016) (Proposition 47 reclassification does not defeat § 841 recidivist enhancement)
Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (federal law, not state law, defines whether a prior conviction counts for federal statutes)
McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (backward-looking inquiry: consult law at time of the prior conviction)
Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (vacated prior convictions negate recidivist enhancements)
United States v. Lopez, 907 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.) (prior convictions governed by federal law for § 841 purposes)
United States v. Graham, 315 F.3d 777 (7th Cir.) (discharged probation does not prevent counting a prior conviction)
United States v. Gomez, 24 F.3d 924 (7th Cir.) (no federal benefit from state efforts to retroactively "wipe the slate clean")
United States v. Law, 528 F.3d 888 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (prior felony convictions can count despite expungement or setting-aside in some contexts)
Ben-Yisrayl v. Buss, 540 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2008) (due-process right to sentencing based on accurate information)