48 F.4th 1125
10th Cir.2022Background
- USPS/USPIS intercepted a June 3, 2020 Priority Mail Express package to 104 SE 39th St; the seized package contained 1,720.54 g of mixture at 71% purity (~1,222 g actual methamphetamine).
- The PSR converted actual methamphetamine to guideline “converted drug weight,” added three additional packages sent to Williams’ 19th Street residence, and concluded converted weight exceeded 30,000 kg → base offense level 36 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).
- Williams objected to including those three packages (arguing no evidence supported them) and challenged an ACCA enhancement based on three prior Oklahoma drug convictions (arguing Oklahoma’s marijuana/hemp definitions made the convictions overbroad).
- At sentencing the government said it would present evidence including the three contested packages but only introduced evidence about packages sent to 39th Street; the district court nevertheless adopted the PSR calculation, overruled Williams’ objections, applied ACCA, and imposed concurrent 284-month sentences.
- The Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded: (1) the drug-quantity finding was erroneous because the three packages relied on by the PSR had no evidentiary support at sentencing and the government failed to prove harmlessness; (2) the ACCA enhancement was improper because Williams’ prior Oklahoma convictions were categorically overbroad given that hemp was excluded from the federal definition of marijuana at the time of the federal offense (the court adopts a time-of-instant-federal-offense comparison).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court clearly erred by including three uncontested packages in drug-quantity calculation | Williams: PSR relied on three packages for which the government presented no evidence; they should not be counted | Government: other evidence (packages to 39th St) provides “more than enough” support for the >30,000 kg finding | Court: District court relied (at least in part) on unsupported packages → clear error; remand for drug-quantity findings because government failed to prove harmlessness |
| Whether Williams’ prior Oklahoma convictions are categorical ACCA “serious drug offenses” when state statute included hemp | Williams: convictions overbroad because Oklahoma law covered hemp and federal definition (at time of federal offense) excluded hemp | Government: compare state offense to federal law as of the time of the prior state convictions; any error is harmless under the concurrent-sentence doctrine | Court: Compare to federal definition in effect at time of the instant federal offense; Williams’ prior convictions are not categorical ACCA predicates; remand to resentence without ACCA enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aragon, 922 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for drug-quantity clear-error and caution on estimates)
- United States v. Dalton, 409 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2005) (trial courts may estimate drug quantity if reliable indicia exist)
- United States v. Harrison, 743 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing error from harmlessness where PSR reliance was unsupported)
- United States v. Burris, 29 F.4th 1232 (10th Cir. 2022) (government bears burden to prove harmlessness of sentencing error)
- United States v. Cantu, 964 F.3d 924 (10th Cir. 2020) (Oklahoma § 2-401(A)(1) can be overbroad as a predicate drug offense)
- McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (discussing time-of-conviction concepts for predicate-offense analysis)
- United States v. Bautista, 989 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 2021) (compare prior state conviction to federal law in effect at time of federal sentencing)
- United States v. Abdulaziz, 998 F.3d 519 (1st Cir. 2021) (same timing rule applied to guideline/controlled-substance comparisons)
- United States v. Hope, 28 F.4th 487 (4th Cir. 2022) (applies federal definition at time of sentencing for categorical comparison)
- United States v. Jackson, 36 F.4th 1294 (11th Cir. 2022) (due-process fair-notice supports time-of-federal-offense comparison)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) (categorical-approach considerations in immigration context)
- United States v. Titties, 852 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2017) (illegal sentence is reversible)
- United States v. Roberts, 14 F.3d 502 (10th Cir. 1993) (appellate courts should not make the factual findings necessary to support sentencing calculations)
- United States v. Segien, 114 F.3d 1014 (10th Cir. 1997) (concurrent-sentence doctrine)