# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 25 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Edwar d M erri tt

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 8, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Aug us t 1 6, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , KELL Y and KOBES, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Edwar d Ty

ro ne Mer rit t pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a f i r e a r m, i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). At se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ct co ur t de te rm in ed th at Mer rit t’s pr io r co nv ic ti on un de r 21 U

. S

. C

. § §

1

Th e Hon or ab le Bet h Ph il li ps , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te r n 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), an d 84 6 fo r co ns pi racy to po s s e s s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50

gr am s or m or e of co cai ne qu al ifi ed as a “ co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se .” As a res ul t,
it cal cu la te d a b a se of

fen se le ve l of 20 un de r Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A) (2 01 6) an d a n ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge of 46 to 57 m on th s of
im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Mer rit t to 46 m on th s. Mer rit t ap pe al s hi s

se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at hi s pr io r d r u g c on sp ira cy co nv ic ti on is no t a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e o ffen se un de r th e Gui de li ne s.

W he n rev ie win g a se nt en ce fo r pr oc ed ur al erro r, “ we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s

co ns tru ct io n an d ap pl ic at io n o f t he se nt en ci ng [G]uid el in es de no vo an d it s fact ua l
fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Mal do na do

, 86 4 F.3 d 89 3, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (cl ean ed up ) (q uo ti ng Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Hag en , 64 1 F.3 d 26 8, 27 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )).

The Gui de li ne s de fin e a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se a s “an of

fen se un de r fed eral or st at e la w . . . th at pro hi bi ts

. . . th e p os se ss io n o f a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

.

. . wit h in te nt to

. . . di st rib ut e.” USSG § 4B 1.2 ( b ). The co m m en ta ry st at es th at a

“ ‘con tro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se ’ in cl ud e[s ] th e of fen se s of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng ,

co ns pi rin g, an d at te m

pt in g to co m

m it su ch of

fen se [].” USSG § 4B 1.2 (b ), cm t. (n .1).

Mer rit t fir st arg ue s th at dr ug co n s p i r a c y co nv ic ti on s do no t fal l wit hi n th is
de fin it io n be cau se Not e 1 can no t ad d co ns pi racy of fen se s to th e de fin it io n in §
4B 1.2 (b ), whi ch he arg ue s sp eci fic al ly om it s in ch o a t e o f f e ns es

. Thi s arg um en t is
fo recl os ed by Uni te d St at es v. Men do za-F ig u e r o a , 6 5 F.3 d 69 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (en
ba nc ), in whi ch ou r en ba nc co ur t de te rm in ed th at co ns pi racy to co m m it a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e of

fen se is it se lf a co nt ro ll ed subs ta nce of fen se as de fin ed by th e Gui de li ne s. See id . a t 69 4. Ou r pa ne l m ay no t o ve rru le a de ci si on of t he en ba nc co ur t. Uni te d
St at es v. Lu cas , 52 1 F .3d 86 1, 8 67 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

-2

-M erri tt arg ue s in th e al te rn at iv e th at , un de r th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

, § 84 6

co ns pi racy is br oa de r th an ge ne ric co ns pi racy be cau se it do es no t req ui re an ov ert act

. Bec au se Mer rit t di d no t rai se th is arg um en t be fo re th e d is tri ct co ur t, we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d Stat es v. Thomas, 88 6 F.3d 12 74
, 12 75 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8)

. To

su ccee d on pl ai n erro r rev ie w, Mer rit t must sh ow (1 ) an erro r; (2 ) th at is pl ai n; (3 )
th at affe ct s hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s; an d (4 ) th at se rio us ly affe ct s “ th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y ,

or pu bl ic rep ut a t i o n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v. Bo m an , 87 3 F.3 d
10 35
, 10 40 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Olan o, 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 2 (1 99 3) ).

Thi s co ur t ha s no t ye t co ns id ered whe th er co ur ts m us t ap pl y th e cat eg or ic al

ap pr oa ch to de te rm in e whe th er a co nv ic ti on un de r § 84 6, a fed eral st at ut e, qu al ifi es

as a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se

. In an a l o g o u s c i rcu m st an ces , ou r si st er ci rcu it s
ap pe a r sp li t as to whe th er it is ne ces sa ry to de te rm in e whe th er a fed eral co ns pi racy

st at ut e is a cat eg or ic al mat c h fo r ge ne ric co ns pi racy. Co m pa re Uni te d St at es v. Ri ve ra-C on st an ti no , 79 8 F.3 d 90 0, 9 0 3

– 0 4 ( 9 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (co nc lu di ng th ere is no

ne ed to as cert ai n whe th er § 84 6 co ns pi racy i s a cat eg or ic al m at ch fo r ge ne ric

co ns p i r a c y t o de te rm in e th at § 84 6 co ns pi racy qu al ifi es as a “ dr ug tra ffi ck in g of fen se ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of USSG § 2L1 .2); Uni te d St at es v. San br ia -Bu en o, 54 9
F. App ’x 43 4, 43 8– 39 (6 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (s am e); Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z-Es care no , 70 0 F.3 d 75 1, 75 3– 54 (5 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (s am e); wit h Uni te d St at es v. McC ol lu m , 88 5
F.3 d 30 0, 30 5– 09 (4 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (h ol di ng co ns pi racy to co m m it m ur de r in ai d of
rack et eeri ng un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 9 5 9 ( a ) ( 5 ) is no t a cat eg or ic al m at ch fo r ge ne ric

co ns pi r a c y a n d th eref

or e no t a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” wit hi n th e m ean in g of USSG § 4B 1.2 (a)) ; Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z-Cr uz , 83 6 F.3 d 13 05
, 13 13 –1 4 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 16 ) (h ol di ng § 84 6 co ns pi racy is no t a cat eg or ic al m at ch fo r ge ne ric co ns pi racy an d
th eref or e no t a “ dr ug tra ffi ck in g of fen se ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of USS G § 2 L1 .2).

“ [G]ive n th e la ck of au th or it y o n t hi s is su e in th is ci rcu it an d a sp li t in au th or it y in

ot he r ci rcu it s, ev en if th ere were erro r, it wou ld n o t b e p l a i n or ob vi ou s.” Uni te d
St at es v. J or da n, 8 77 F.3d 39 1, 3 96 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7)

.

-3

-Bec au se Mer rit t can no t sh ow an y erro r “ th at is cl ear or ob vi ou s un de r cu rren t

la w” he can no t sa ti sf

y th e req ui rem en ts o f p l a i n erro r rev ie w. Uni te d St at es v. Lov el ace, 56 5 F.3 d 10 80
, 10 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t
of th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-