Background
Jacobi Shelton Washington pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. The district court sentenced him to 195 months in prison after determining that he qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines.
The career-offender guideline requires, among other things, at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses. Washington had a 2012 federal drug conviction and a 2018 Michigan conviction for delivery or manufacture of cocaine. He argued that the Michigan conviction did not qualify because Michigan’s definition of cocaine covered more conduct than the federal definition did at the time of his conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. Under the circuit’s precedent in United States v. Jones, a state controlled-substance offense need not define controlled substances in the same way as the federal Controlled Substances Act to qualify under the career-offender guideline.
Because Washington’s Michigan cocaine conviction counted as a controlled substance offense, he had the two qualifying prior convictions required for career-offender status. The district court therefore properly applied the enhancement. The panel also noted that Washington acknowledged Jones was binding precedent.
Key Takeaways
- A state drug conviction may qualify as a controlled substance offense under the career-offender guideline even if the state’s controlled-substance definition is broader than federal law.
- Washington’s Michigan conviction for delivery or manufacture of cocaine was a qualifying controlled substance offense.
- The Sixth Circuit upheld Washington’s 195-month sentence and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Sixth Circuit precedent rejecting the argument that state and federal controlled-substance definitions must match for a state conviction to support career-offender status. Within the circuit, defendants generally cannot defeat the enhancement merely by showing that the relevant state drug schedule was broader than the federal schedule.