Background
Jerry Jarell McKnight, Jr. appealed the 18-month prison sentence imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. The alleged violations involved new criminal conduct: possessing marijuana and methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
McKnight argued on appeal that his most serious violations should have been classified as Grade C rather than Grade B violations. He contended that the classification caused the district court to calculate an incorrect policy-statement range of 18 to 24 months’ imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It first concluded that McKnight had invited the alleged error because he and the government jointly proposed at the revocation hearing that the disputed violations be classified as Grade B violations.
The court also held that the Grade B classification was correct on the merits. McKnight admitted possessing controlled substances, and although he did not admit an intent to distribute them, his simple possession was punishable by up to two years in prison under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) because of his prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). His conduct therefore constituted an offense punishable by more than one year and qualified as a Grade B violation under U.S.S.G. § 7C1.1(a)(2).
Key Takeaways
- A defendant generally cannot challenge a classification that defense counsel jointly proposed to the district court.
- For supervised-release purposes, the violation grade turns on the punishment applicable to the defendant’s conduct, including enhanced punishment based on a prior conviction.
- McKnight’s admitted drug possession independently supported Grade B treatment even without an admission that he intended to distribute the drugs.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates both the procedural consequences of invited error and the importance of a defendant’s criminal history when classifying supervised-release violations. Conduct that might otherwise appear to be simple possession can qualify as a Grade B violation when a prior conviction raises the maximum punishment above one year.
The opinion is unpublished and therefore is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.