United States v. McKibbon
Decision Date | 28 December 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 16-1493,16-1493 |
Citation | 878 F.3d 967 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Alan MCKIBBON, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jacob Rasch-Chabot, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Denver, Colorado for Defendant-Appellant Gary Alan McKibbon.
J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Robert C. Troyer, U.S. Attorney, and Robert Mark Russel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee United States of America.
Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
In this direct criminal appeal, we conclude both that the district court plainly erred in treating Defendant Gary McKibbon's prior Colorado drug distribution conviction as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), and that that error warrants resentencing.
McKibbon pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In calculating his sentence for that offense under the 2016 sentencing guidelines, the district court consulted U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, which provided for a base offense level of twenty if McKibbon had a prior "controlled substance offense" as defined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) and its application note 1. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) & app. n.13. The court, without objection, deemed McKibbon's 2014 Colorado conviction under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-405(1)(a) for distribution of a Schedule I or II controlled substance to be such a "controlled substance offense." Using a base offense level of twenty, then, the sentencing court calculated McKibbon's total offense level to be twenty-one which, combined with his criminal history category IV, resulted in an advisory guideline range of fifty-seven to seventy-one months in prison. The district court imposed a within-range sentence of sixty-six months.
On appeal, McKibbon argues for the first time that his prior 2014 Colorado conviction does not qualify as a "controlled substance offense." We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) to consider his appeal.1
Because McKibbon did not object at sentencing to classifying his prior Colorado conviction as a "controlled substance offense," we review for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) ; see also United States v. Taylor, 843 F.3d 1215, 1219 (10th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1608, 197 L.Ed.2d 732 (2017). To obtain relief, then, McKibbon "must establish (1) the existence of ‘an error that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned,’ (2) ‘the error must be plain—that is to say, clear or obvious,’ and (3) ‘the error ... [must] have affected the defendant's substantial rights.’ " Taylor, 843 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Molina-Martinez v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1343, 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016) ). " ‘Once these three conditions have been met,’ we must ‘exercise [our] discretion to correct the forfeited error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ " Id. (quoting Molina-Martinez, 136 S.Ct. at 1343 ).
Relevant to the statute's proscription against selling a controlled substance, Colorado defines "[s]ale" to "mean[ ] a barter, an exchange, or a gift, or an offer therefor." Id. § 18-18-403(1) (emphasis added); see also id. § 18-18-102(33) (emphasis added).
Id. § 4B1.2, app. n.1.
We apply a categorical/modified categorical analysis to determine whether McKibbon's prior Colorado conviction qualifies as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). See United States v. Madkins, 866 F.3d 1136, 1143-44 (10th Cir. 2017). In doing so, our focus is on "the elements of the statute of conviction and ‘not [on] the particular facts underlying that conviction.’ " United States v. O'Connor, 874 F.3d 1147, 1151 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) ) (alteration omitted).
Comparing "the scope of the conduct covered by the elements of" an offense under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-405(1)(a) with § 4B1.2(b)'s definition of a "controlled substance offense," O'Connor, 874 F.3d at 1151, we conclude the state statute criminalizes a broader range of conduct than that included in § 4B1.2(b). Specifically, the state statute criminalizes all offers to sell a controlled substance, while U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) does not encompass mere offers to sell a controlled substance.
Colorado Revised Statute § 18-18-405(1)(a), in pertinent part, makes it "unlawful for any person knowingly to manufacture, dispense, sell, or distribute, or to possess with intent to manufacture, dispense, sell or distribute, a controlled substance." Critically and relevant to the state statute's proscription against selling a controlled substance, Colorado defines "[s]ale" to "mean[ ] a barter, an exchange, or a gift, or an offer therefor." Id. § 18-18-403(1) (emphasis added); see also id. § 18-18-102(33) (emphasis added).
However, the sentencing guidelines' definition of a "controlled substance offense" in § 4B1.2(b) does not expressly include offering to sell. See Madkins, 866 F.3d at 1145. Instead, § 4B1.2(b) defines a "controlled substance offense" to include only "the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense," U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). "[F]or purposes of this definition, ‘distribute’ means ‘to deliver ... a controlled substance or listed chemical.’ " Madkins, 866 F.3d at 1144 (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 802(11) ).
This court reached a similar conclusion in Madkins, holding that U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)'s definition of a "controlled substance offense" did not encompass a conviction under a Kansas law that made it a crime to offer to sell a controlled substance. 866 F.3d at 1143-48.2
Other circuits have reached similar conclusions about other state statutes criminalizing offers to sell drugs. See United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569, 571-72 & 571 n.8 (5th Cir. 2016) ( ); United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959, 964-66 (2d Cir. 2008) ( ).
Although a "controlled substance offense" under § 4B1.2(b) includes attempts to distribute controlled substances, in Madkins we considered and rejected the argument that such attempts would necessarily encompass a state offense involving an "offer to sell" a controlled substance:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Alderete
...[a defendant's] prior ... conviction qualifies as a ‘controlled substance offense’ under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)." United States v. McKibbon, 878 F.3d 967, 971 (10th Cir. 2017). In its application, the "focus is on ‘the elements of the statute of conviction and not on the particular facts under......
-
United States v. Dawson
...the CSA. See Thomas , 969 F.3d at 584–85 ; United States v. Madkins , 866 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2017) ; United States v. McKibbon , 878 F.3d 967, 972 (10th Cir. 2017) ; United States v. Smith , 921 F.3d 708, 716 (7th Cir. 2019). The Sixth Circuit in particular has thoroughly analyzed t......
-
United States v. Almanza-Vigil
...previous convictions that enhance the sentence of a "career offender" under the federal sentencing guidelines. United States v. McKibbon , 878 F.3d 967, 971–76 (10th Cir. 2017) ; United States v. Madkins , 866 F.3d 1136, 1144–48 (10th Cir. 2017) ; see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua......
-
United States v. Johnson
...convictions do not qualify as a "'controlled substance offense'" under the U.S.S.G. Objections at 3 (quoting United States v. McKibbon, 878 F.3d 967, 971 (10th Cir. 2017)). The relevant provision states:The term "controlled substance offense" means an offense under federal or state law, pun......
-
Divisibility Redux "alternatively Phrased Statutes" and State Law in the Post-mathis Categorical Approach
...900 F.3d 823, 829 (6th Cir. 2018) (treating the Blockburger analysis as controlling for Mathis purposes).54.. United States v. McKibbon, 878 F.3d 967, 974-75 (10th Cir. 2017).55.. Id. at 975 (citing People v. Abiodun, 111 P.3d 462, 464 (Colo. 2005)).56.. Id.57.. United States v. Gundy, 842 ......