Oregon Drug Delivery Conviction Not A Federal “Controlled Substance Offense” For Career Offender Purposes
Oregon drug delivery conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes 475.992(1)(a) is not a “controlled substance offense” under federal law, according to the Ninth Circuit. Sandoval v. Yates, No. 13-71784 (9th Cir. 2017). This is an important case for criminal defendants because of its impact on individuals with career offender enhancements. The court held that Oregon drug delivery convictions under 475.992(1)(a) are not qualifying because “delivery” can mean an “offer to sell.” Offering to sell drugs is not a federal drug crime.
Sandoval was decided in an immigration context, but that should not hinder its application in federal criminal cases. In many ways, the Sandoval decision looks a lot like the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Hinkle.
Recommended for you
MVRA Restitution And Loss Amount Inadequate, Eleventh Circuit Holds
United States v. Mitchell J. Stein : Mitchell Stein, a former attorney, challenged the district court’s loss and MVRA restitution determination in a mail, wire, and securities fraud prosecution arguing that the Government had failed to demonstrate both factual and legal causation for the loss amount.Using the same standard for Stein’s loss and restitution challenge,…
Career Offender Enhancement Cannot Be Based On Texas Possession With Intent To Distribute Conviction
United States v. Tanksley – Career Offender Enhancement : Dantana Tanksley was previously convicted in Texas under Section 481.112(a) of the Texas controlled substances act of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He was later enhanced as a career offender under federal sentencing guidelines. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, an individual can be…
Attorney Abandonment Claim Remanded For A Hearing
Mark Christeson filed a motion to re-open his habeas proceedings under Rule 60(b) arguing that his attorney’s failure to timely submit his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (used by state prisoners but similar to a 2255) constituted attorney abandonment. The abandonment issue was key to resolving whether “extraordinary circumstances” existed to warrant granting Rule 60…
