United States v. Edward Merritt

934 F.3d 809
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 16, 2019
Docket18-2500
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 934 F.3d 809 (United States v. Edward Merritt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Edward Merritt, 934 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Edward Tyrone Merritt pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court 1 determined that Merritt's prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine qualified as a "controlled substance offense." As a result, it calculated a base offense level of 20 under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2016) and an advisory Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months of imprisonment. The district court sentenced Merritt to 46 months. Merritt appeals his sentence, arguing that his prior drug conspiracy conviction is not a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines.

When reviewing a sentence for procedural error, "we review the district court's construction and application of the sentencing [G]uidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error." United States v. Maldonado , 864 F.3d 893 , 897 (8th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Hagen , 641 F.3d 268 , 270 (8th Cir. 2011) ).

The Guidelines define a controlled substance offense as "an offense under federal or state law ... that prohibits ... the possession of a controlled substance ... with intent to ... distribute." USSG § 4B1.2(b). The commentary states that a " 'controlled substance offense' include[s] the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting to commit such offense[ ]." USSG § 4B1.2(b), cmt. (n.1).

Merritt first argues that drug conspiracy convictions do not fall within this definition because Note 1 cannot add conspiracy offenses to the definition in § 4B1.2(b), which he argues specifically omits inchoate offenses. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mendoza-Figueroa , 65 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 1995) (en banc), in which our en banc court determined that conspiracy to commit a controlled substance offense is itself a controlled substance offense as defined by the Guidelines. See id. at 694 . Our panel may not overrule a decision of the en banc court. United States v. Lucas , 521 F.3d 861 , 867 (8th Cir. 2008).

Merritt argues in the alternative that, under the categorical approach, § 846 conspiracy is broader than generic conspiracy because it does not require an overt act. Because Merritt did not raise this argument before the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Thomas , 886 F.3d 1274 , 1275 (8th Cir. 2018). To succeed on plain error review, Merritt must show (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects his substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects "the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. Boman , 873 F.3d 1035 , 1040 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) ).

This court has not yet considered whether courts must apply the categorical approach to determine whether a conviction under § 846, a federal statute, qualifies as a controlled substance offense. In analogous circumstances, our sister circuits appear split as to whether it is necessary to determine whether a federal conspiracy statute is a categorical match for generic conspiracy. Compare United States v. Rivera-Constantino , 798 F.3d 900 , 903-04 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding there is no need to ascertain whether § 846 conspiracy is a categorical match for generic conspiracy to determine that § 846 conspiracy qualifies as a "drug trafficking offense" within the meaning of USSG § 2L1.2 ); United States v. Sanbria-Bueno , 549 F. App'x 434 , 438-39 (6th Cir. 2013) (same); United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno , 700 F.3d 751 , 753-54 (5th Cir. 2012) (same); with United States v. McCollum , 885 F.3d 300 , 305-09 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Tainewasher
Ninth Circuit, 2025
Hall v. United States
W.D. Missouri, 2025
United States v. Scott Cupples
105 F.4th 1096 (Eighth Circuit, 2024)
United States v. Jaime Campos
79 F.4th 903 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)
United States v. Remberto Rivera
76 F.4th 1085 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)
United States v. Vargas
74 F.4th 673 (Fifth Circuit, 2023)
United States v. Melvin Shields
63 F.4th 1145 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)
Scott v. United States
D. South Dakota, 2023
United States v. Christopher Perez
46 F.4th 691 (Eighth Circuit, 2022)
United States v. Marion Hare
Eighth Circuit, 2022
United States v. Antoine Smith
Eighth Circuit, 2022
United States v. Tony Bone
Eighth Circuit, 2022
United States v. Trey Campbell
22 F.4th 438 (Fourth Circuit, 2022)
United States v. Levi Miller
11 F.4th 944 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)
United States v. Isaiah Henderson
11 F.4th 713 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)
United States v. Tray Miller
Eighth Circuit, 2021
United States v. Morris Brown
1 F.4th 617 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
934 F.3d 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-edward-merritt-ca8-2019.