NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 

File Name: 17a0218n.06 

 No. 16-5494 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JERRY WAYNE ALEXANDER, JR., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

TENNESSEE 

 BEFORE: MERRITT, GILMAN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. 

 PER CURIAM. Jerry Wayne Alexander, Jr., appeals his judgment of conviction and 

sentence. As set forth below, we affirm. 

 After a four-day trial, a jury convicted Alexander of conspiracy to distribute less than 28 

grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. At sentencing, the district 

court classified Alexander as a career offender based on his prior convictions and calculated the 

career offender range as 262 to 327 months of imprisonment. The district court granted a 

downward variance from that range and sentenced Alexander to 200 months of imprisonment. 

This timely appeal followed. 

 Alexander first contends that the district court improperly relied on state-court judgments 

to establish his predicate offenses for career-offender status, rendering his sentence procedurally 

and substantively unreasonable. We review de novo the district court’s determination that a 
No. 16-5494, United States v. Alexander

- 2 - 

prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under the career-offender guideline. United 

States v. Baker, 559 F.3d 443, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). 

 Pursuant to USSG § 4B1.1(a), a defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at 

least eighteen years old at the time of the instant offense, (2) the instant offense is either a crime 

of violence or a controlled-substance offense, and (3) “the defendant has at least two prior felony 

convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” Alexander’s 

presentence report identified the following Tennessee convictions as predicate offenses for his 

career-offender status: (1) his 1998 convictions for attempted second-degree murder and 

aggravated assault, (2) his 2007 drug conviction, and (3) his 2007 aggravated-assault 

convictions. 

 Alexander argues that, under Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), the statecourt judgments presented by the government were insufficient to establish his predicate offenses 

for application of the career-offender guideline. In Shepard, the Supreme Court held that, under 

the modified categorical approach for statutes with multiple alternative elements, the sentencing 

court may look to “the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or 

transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was 

confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable judicial record of this information,” id. at 26, 

“to determine what crime, with what elements, a defendant was convicted of,” Mathis v. United 

States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2249 (2016). 

 Contrary to Alexander’s argument, we have held that “state-court judgments are valid 

Shepard documents.” United States v. Moore, 578 F. App’x 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2014); see United 

States v. Cooper, 739 F.3d 873, 881 (6th Cir. 2014). The judgments for Alexander’s aggravatedassault convictions show that he was convicted of Class C felonies. This court has held that 

Tennessee Class C aggravated assaults are crimes of violence under the career-offender 
No. 16-5494, United States v. Alexander

- 3 - 

guideline. See Cooper, 739 F.3d at 881-83. The original and revocation judgments for 

Alexander’s drug conviction together show that he was convicted of possession of less than .5 

grams of cocaine for resale, a Class C felony, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-

417, which is a controlled-substance offense under the career-offender guideline. See United 

States v. Douglas, 563 F. App’x 371, 378 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Section 39-17-417 is a categorical 

controlled substance offense.”). Alexander makes no argument about his attempted seconddegree murder conviction. The district court therefore properly classified Alexander as a career 

offender based on his prior convictions as evidenced by the state-court judgments. 

 Alexander next argues that the district court erred in relying on his statement to police to 

determine the drug quantity attributable to him, asserting that his statement described activities 

unrelated to the charged conspiracy. As Alexander concedes, this issue is relevant to the 

guidelines calculation only if this court “set[s] aside the application of the [c]areer offender 

guideline.” Because the district court properly applied the career-offender guideline to calculate 

Alexander’s sentencing range, we need not address his argument about the drug quantity. 

 Finally, Alexander contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting 

evidence about two controlled buys of crack cocaine. We review the district court’s evidentiary 

ruling for abuse of discretion. United States v. Morales, 687 F.3d 697, 701-02 (6th Cir. 2012). 

“A court abuses its discretion when it ‘relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly 

applies the law, or employs an erroneous legal standard,’ or when we are ‘firmly convinced’ that 

the trial court ‘committed a clear error of judgment.’” United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365, 

378 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Miner, 774 F.3d 336, 348 (6th Cir. 2014)). 

 At trial, an officer with the Red Bank Police Department testified that a confidential 

informant made two controlled purchases of crack cocaine at 538 Gadd Road, Alexander’s 

residence, obtaining field weights of .8 grams on October 10, 2013, and .7 grams on October 11, 
No. 16-5494, United States v. Alexander

- 4 - 

2013. Alexander argues that there was no evidence connecting these controlled purchases to him 

or to the charged conspiracy because the officer could not testify that Alexander sold the crack 

cocaine to the confidential informant. But in a recorded telephone call introduced by the 

government, Alexander attempted to figure out the identity of the confidential informant, stating 

that “there was somebody that he sold eight and seven to.” The jury could reasonably infer that 

Alexander was referencing the two controlled purchases involving .8 and .7 grams. The district 

court therefore did not abuse its discretion in allowing the evidence of these controlled 

purchases. 

 For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.