PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4420

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SOTERIO LAMAR HOPE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:19-cr-00261-MGL-1)

Argued: October 29, 2021 Decided: March 9, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in 

which Judge Wynn joined. Judge Thacker wrote a dissenting opinion.

ARGUED: Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas Ernest Booth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jill E.M. HaLevi, 

MEDIATION & LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. 

Nicholas L. McQuaid, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Robert A. Zink, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; M. Rhett DeHart, Acting United States Attorney, 

Kathleen M. Stoughton, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
2

GREGORY, Chief Judge:

Hope pled guilty to one count of knowingly possessing a firearm and ammunition. 

J.A. 36. During sentencing, the United States Probation Office completed a presentence 

report (“PSR”) determining that Hope qualified for a mandatory minimum sentence under 

the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), based on three prior South Carolina 

convictions, dated May 22, 2013, for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in 

proximity of a school. J.A. 152. Hope objected, arguing that his prior South Carolina 

convictions were not predicate offenses under the ACCA. J.A. 159–60. The district court 

overruled Hope’s objection and imposed a minimum sentence of 15-years’ incarceration, 

followed by three years of supervised release. J.A. 101–03, 113. Hope now appeals.

We hold that the district court erred in finding that Hope’s prior state convictions 

qualified as “serious drug offenses” under the ACCA, and, thus, we vacate and remand for 

resentencing.

I.

On February 1, 2018, Soterio Lamar Hope was named in a one-count superseding 

indictment in the United States District Court in South Carolina charging him with 

knowingly possessing a firearm and ammunition, all of which had been shipped and 

transported in interstate and foreign commerce, having previously been convicted of a 

felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e) (Count One). J.A. 36,

143. On November 19, 2019, Hope pled guilty to Count One of the Superseding 

Indictment. J.A. 6, 68. On February 11, 2020, the United States Probation Office 
3

completed a PSR, which was subsequently revised on March 23, 2020. J.A. 142. The PSR 

noted that Hope qualified for a mandatory minimum of 15-years’ incarceration under the 

ACCA, based on three prior South Carolina convictions dated May 22, 2013. J.A. 152; 

PSR ¶ 40. This determination resulted in an offense level of 33. J.A. 152. After receiving 

credit for acceptance of responsibility, Hope’s total offense level was 30, which would 

have resulted in a sentencing guideline range of 135–168 months. J.A. 152; PSR ¶ 55.

During his sentencing hearing on August 12, 2020, Hope objected to the application 

of the ACCA by arguing that his prior South Carolina convictions were not predicate 

offenses under the ACCA. J.A. 159–60. The district court overruled Hope’s objections 

and imposed a mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA of 180-months’ 

incarceration. J.A. 154, 101–03, 113. Final judgment was entered on August 13, 2020. 

On August 17, 2020, Hope filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.

II.

As an initial matter, there is a question of whether we review de novo or for plain 

error. Generally, we review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a “serious drug 

offense” under the ACCA because it is a question of law. United States v. Burns-Johnson, 

864 F.3d 313, 315 (4th Cir. 2017). Additionally, we review de novo a trial court’s legal 

interpretation of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Wessells, 936 

F.2d 165, 168 (4th Cir. 1991).

Here, the Government alleges that Hope did not object during sentencing to the 

determination that his predicate offenses qualified as a “serious drug offense” under the 
4

ACCA. Resp. Br. at 6–8. Thus, the Government argues that Hope forfeited his ACCA 

claim and that we are limited to plain error review because Hope’s argument on appeal is 

“different from his claim in the district court.” Resp. Br. at 6–8. While it is true that claims 

not raised at the district court are forfeited and thus, limit appellate review to plain error, 

this is not the case here. See, e.g., United States v. White, 836 F.3d 437, 444 (4th Cir. 2016) 

(holding that if the defendant did not object at trial, he has forfeited his claim on appeal, 

and the reviewing court is limited to plain error); United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 

190, 200 (4th Cir. 2012) (same); United States v. Olano, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776, (1993) 

(holding that courts may review a forfeited claim for plain error).

We review de novo because Hope properly and timely objected at sentencing that 

his prior South Carolina convictions were not serious drug offenses as a matter of law under 

the ACCA. J.A. 101, 159–60.1

 Thus, Hope did not forfeit his claim. See Olano, 113 S. 

1 Hope objected to the PSR by arguing that:

[H]is South Carolina convictions for Distribute, sell, manufacture, or 

possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance statute should not 

qualify as predicate convictions for purpose of the Armed Career Criminal 

Act. Counsel is aware of United States v. Marshall, which ruled that S.C. 

Code section 44-53-445 is a divisible statute and that under the modified 

categorical approach, possession with intent to distribute marijuana in the 

proximity of a school counts as a predicate conviction for purposes of the 

ACCA. 747 F. App’x 139.

However, Mr. Hope pled to a duplicitous indictment in state court. This 

creates a due process concern because his state court indictment charged him 

with multiple offenses in a single count. As a result, Mr. Hope was not put 

on notice of the charge against him and this creates a constitutional infirmity. 

Counsel acknowledges the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. 

(Continued)
5

Ct. at 1777 (1993) (clarifying that “forfeiture [is] the failure to make the timely assertion 

of a right”). Though the dissent argues that Hope “never argued — either in written 

objections to the PSR or at sentencing” that his state convictions were not serious drug 

offenses under the ACCA, see Dissenting Op. at 35, we find that during sentencing and in 

his PSR, Hope’s counsel argued that the South Carolina statute was divisible and that 

though the Fourth Circuit previously held that it was a categorical match, this was no longer 

true because Congress decriminalized hemp in 2018. Though we understand this could be 

a close question and recognize that counsel could have provided a better analysis to guide 

the district court, Hope specifically objected to the application of the ACCA on the grounds 

that there was no categorical match with his previous state convictions. The district court 

understood Hope’s objection and overruled it.2

Furlow, which concluded that the duplicitous argument raised by Furlow was 

a matter for the South Carolina state courts. 928 F.3d 311, fn.15.

J.A. 159 (emphasis added).

2 At sentencing, Hope’s counsel stated: “I believe on— the Marshall Court 

forecloses my analysis because the Fourth Circuit have really not published a persuasive 

opinion that 445 is divisible modified category approach that applies (sic).” J.A. 101 

(emphasis added); Sentencing Tr. 11:10–14. The district court agreed, see Sentencing Tr. 

11:15, and overruled Hope’s objection. Counsel then moved on to discuss the second 

objection under the duplicitous indictment theory, but also said this objection was 

foreclosed:

[S]o I think my position’s (sic) for opposing that, but I made a duplicitous 

indictment argument. Basically, what I looked at Mr. Hope’s predicate 

convictions under the guidelines, which is the proximity statute, 445. If you 

look at the statute, it list—if you look at the indictment, it lists different 

elements since it was a divisible statute in one count, Your Honor, but in light 

of a furlough petition, which basically when Supreme Court reviewed the 

(Continued)
6

Still, the Government would have us believe that Hope’s objection was solely based 

on a duplicitous indictment theory. While it is true that counsel also raised an objection 

based on the duplicitous indictment theory, counsel first objected on the basis that Hope’s 

South Carolina offenses did not qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA and cited to 

United States v. Marshall, 747 F. App’x 139 (4th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1214 

(2019), a case dealing with the same objection and same South Carolina offense at issue 

here.3

 We have clarified that for purposes of de novo appellate review, it is sufficient for 

counsel to articulate an objection based on multiple theories. See Yee v. City of Escondido,

Cal., 112 S. Ct. 1522, 1532 (1992) (“Once a federal claim is properly presented, a party 

can make any argument in support of that claim; parties are not limited to the precise 

arguments they made below.”); United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 300 (4th Cir. 

2014) (holding that although a petitioner did not make the same “precise” argument before 

the district court, as he did on appeal, he did “challenge criminal history score, and thus 

Curtis decision, which basically held that in cases where somebody is 

enhanced in the Armed Career Criminal Act that prior convictions in state 

court cannot be attacked. So, Your Honor, I believe I’m foreclosed on 

Supreme Court precedent in light of that. But I just wanted to raise those out 

of an abundance of caution in case there was something that could have 

benefited Mr. Hope on Supreme Court review.

J.A. 101–02; Sentencing Tr. 11:16–12:12.

3 We also note that the Government’s response brief admits that the district court 

specifically responded to Hope’s ACCA objection which indicates that the district court 

understood Hope’s claim. See Resp. Br. at 15 (stating that “[u]nder the modified 

categorical approach, the district court properly concluded that Hope was convicted of 

three § 445 marijuana offenses”).
7

preserved his claim”).4

 Though Hope now adds more weight to his argument on appeal,

the district court had an opportunity to evaluate his specific objection that his state 

convictions were not predicate offenses for the ACCA enhancement. See J.A. 101–02. 

Moreover, this is not a situation where Hope made an argument that was “too general to 

alert the district court to the specific [objection].” See United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 

194, 199 (4th Cir. 2012) (applying plain error review because defendant’s objection below 

was “far to general to alert the district court” of the argument that he later raised on appeal.). 

Hope is neither raising a new claim nor a new theory. Rather, Hope is adding a finer point 

to his objection raised below. See Robinson, 744 F.3d at 300 n.6 (finding that petitioner’s 

claim challenging his sentencing guidelines criminal history score was preserved in district 

court even though he made a new argument against that score on appeal).

Even if we found that plain error review is appropriate here, the outcome would be 

the same as we would correct the district court’s error. See Section III.E. at 32–34. 

Recently, in a similar case, we clarified that we may first examine the merits of the appeal

and need not decide whether plain error or de novo review apply if the outcome would be 

4 In Robinson, we held that the appellant’s claim challenging his sentencing 

guidelines criminal history score was preserved in district court even though he made a 

new argument against that score on appeal. Robinson’s PSR recommended a two-point 

increase in his score because he was on probation for a marijuana possession conviction at 

the time he committed his instant federal drug conspiracy offense. In district court, 

Robinson objected to the two-point increase because he was only on probation for one day. 

But on appeal, he argued that any increase in points for the marijuana possession was 

erroneous because it was relevant conduct for his instant conspiracy offense. Despite these 

different arguments, we found that plain error review did not apply because the arguments 

were variants of the same claim challenging Robinson’s criminal history score. Id. at 296–

98, 300 n.6.
8

the same. See United States v. Green, 996 F.3d 176, 184 (4th Cir. 2021) (deciding the case 

first on the merits and then holding that, “even if plain error review is appropriate – and 

not our ordinary de novo review of a ‘crime of violence’ determination[,] . . . we would 

correct the district court’s error here and vacate and remand for resentencing”). Still, in 

comparison to Green, our instant case is a better candidate for de novo review because 

Hope sufficiently raised an objection below to a “reasonable degree of specificity which 

[...] adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis of his objection.” United States v.

LeBlanc, 612 F.2d 1012, 1014 (6th Cir. 1980) (internal quotes and citation omitted); see 

also Fed. R. Crim. P. 51(b). In Green, for example, the petitioner’s objection to the career 

offender enhancement consisted of “one sentence and two footnotes.” Id. at 178. Here, 

we need not “parse what may be a fine line between a new ‘claim’ or ‘objection,’ on the 

one hand, and a new ‘twist’ on a preserved claim.” Id. (first quoting In re Under Seal, 749

F.3d 276, 287 (4th Cir. 2014); and then quoting United States v. Billups, 536 F.3d 574, 578 

(7th Cir. 2008)). Hope raised more than a one-sentence objection because his counsel 

objected to the PSR and at sentencing that there was not a categorical match between his 

South Carolina offenses and the ACCA and additionally raised the duplicitous indictment 

objection, for the stated purpose of preserving appellate review. J.A. 101–02 (“I just 

wanted to raise those [objections] out of an abundance of caution in case there was 

something that could have benefited Mr. Hope on Supreme Court review.”).
9

III.

A.

The categorical approach requires us to set aside the particulars of Hope’s actions 

underlying his convictions and, “focus [] instead on ‘the fact of conviction and the statutory 

definition of the prior offense.’” United States v. Dozier, 848 F.3d 180, 183 (4th Cir. 2017)

(quoting United States v. Cabrera-Umanzor, 728 F.3d 347, 350 (4th Cir. 2013)). Then, we 

compare the elements of the state offense with the criteria that the ACCA uses to define “a 

serious drug offense.” See Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 780 (2020) (asking 

“whether the conviction meets [the relevant] criterion”). “The point of the categorical 

inquiry is not to determine whether the defendant’s conduct could support a conviction for 

a [predicate offense], but to determine whether the defendant was in fact convicted of a 

crime that qualifies as a [predicate offense].” Id. (internal citation omitted); see also 

Cabrera–Umanzor, 728 F.3d at 350.

This approach is altered for “divisible” statutes which “list elements in the 

alternative [] and thereby define multiple crimes.” Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 

2249 (2016). As noted by the dissent, to determine whether a statute is divisible and 

constitutes separate crimes we may also “consult ‘external sources’ like jury instructions 

and charging documents.” Dissenting Op. at 39 (citing United States v. Al-Muwwakkil, 

983 F.3d 748, 755–56 (4th Cir. 2020)). If the statute is divisible, then we apply the modified 

categorical approach which requires us to consult “a limited class of documents”—

otherwise known as Shepard documents— “to determine what crime, with what elements, 
10

a defendant was convicted of.” Id. (citing Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1257–

58 (2005)).

The Supreme Court has cautioned that the modified categorical approach “serves a 

limited function” and that Shepard documents may be consulted only where the statute, by 

“listing potential offense elements in the alternative, renders opaque which element played 

a part in the defendant’s conviction.” Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 2283 

(2013). “Where the statute defines the offense broadly rather than alternatively, the statute 

is not divisible, and the modified categorical approach simply ‘has no role to play.’” 

Cabrera–Umanzor, 728 F.3d at 350 (quoting Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2285). That is, 

“[g]eneral divisibility . . . is not enough” to warrant the application of the modified 

categorical approach. Id. at 352. Rather, a statute is divisible “only if at least one of the 

categories into which the statute may be divided constitutes, by its elements, a separate 

offense.” Id. (citations omitted).

After interpreting the statute and identifying the elements of the predicate offenses, 

we consider whether the prior state convictions “qualif[y] as . . . predicate[s],” which is so

“only if [each] statute’s elements are the same as, or narrower than, those of [the relevant 

federal definition].” Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2281. If on the other hand, the elements of 

Hope’s prior state offenses “cover a greater swath of conduct than the elements of the 

relevant offense,” those “crime[s] cannot qualify” as predicates under the ACCA. Mathis, 

136 S. Ct. at 2251. In other words, if the least culpable conduct falls within the ACCA’s 

definition of “a serious drug offense,” then the statute categorically qualifies as a serious 
11

drug offense. But if the least culpable conduct falls outside that definition, then the statute 

is too broad to qualify.

B.

We begin with the ACCA, which, in relevant part, provides:

In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three 

previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title 

for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on 

occasions different from one another, such person shall be fined under this 

title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and, notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a 

probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under 

section 922(g).

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (emphasis added). The ACCA then defines “a serious drug offense” 

as:

(i) an offense under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or 

chapter 705 of title 46 for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten 

years or more is prescribed by law; or

(ii) an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or 

possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance 

(as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), 

for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is 

prescribed by law;

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A). The Controlled Substances Act defines a “controlled substance” 

as “a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or 

V of part B of this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(6). At issue here is cannabis or 

“marihuana,” which is a Schedule I drug and defined as:

all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds 

thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, 
12

manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds 

or resin.

21 U.S.C. § 802(16)(A) (emphasis added). Of note, the 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp 

from the federal schedule of controlled substances. See Agriculture Improvement Act of 

2018, Pub. L. 115-334, Title XII, § 12619(a), 132 Stat. 5018 (Dec. 20, 2018) (“the 2018 

Farm Bill”). Thus, as of December 20, 2018, “marihuana” did not include:

(i) hemp, as defined in section 1639o of Title 7; or

(ii) the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or 

cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, 

salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the 

resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such 

plant which is incapable of germination.

21 U.S.C. § 802(16)(B). Consequently, hemp was defined as:

the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds 

thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and 

salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 

tetrahydrocannabinol [“THC”] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent 

on a dry weight basis.

7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1) (emphasis added); Pub. L. 115-334, Title X, § 10113 (adding 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1639o). Thus, after the 2018 Farm Bill, not all “marijuana” qualifies as a Schedule I drug 

under federal law because marijuana is a Schedule I drug only if the plant or any part of 

the plant has more than 0.3 percent THC. Accordingly, a cannabis/marijuana plant with 

less than 0.3 percent THC is not a Schedule I controlled substance because it is “hemp.”

C.

Next, we examine the South Carolina statute. On May 22, 2013, Hope pled guilty 

to three violations of South Carolina Code § 44-53-445 (“Section 445”), for offenses that 

occurred in 2010, 2012, and 2013. See J.A. 146 at ¶ 17; J.A. 147 at ¶ 18; J.A. 148 at ¶ 19; 
13

J.A. 149 at ¶ 20. Though not at issue here, Hope was also convicted of Distribution of 

Marijuana under § 44-53-370 (“Section 370”).5

Section 445 penalizes distribution of a controlled substance within a certain 

proximity of a school, providing, in relevant part, that:

It is a separate criminal offense for a person to distribute, sell, purchase, 

manufacture, or to unlawfully possess with intent to distribute, a controlled 

substance while in, on, or within a one-half mile radius of the grounds of a 

public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school; a public 

playground or park; a public vocational or trade school or technical 

educational center; or a public or private college or university.

S.C. Code § 44-53-445(A) (emphasis added). To prove that Hope committed an offense 

under § 445, South Carolina had to establish the following: “(1) the defendant had actual 

control, or the right to exercise control over the [marijuana]; (2) he knowingly distributed 

or delivered the [marijuana]; (3) the substance upon analysis was, in fact, [marijuana]; and 

(4) the distribution occurred within a one-half mile radius of the grounds of an elementary, 

middle, secondary or vocational school; public playground or park; or college or 

university.” Brown v. State, 540 S.E.2d 846, 849 (2001) (emphasis added), overruled on

other grounds by State v. Gentry, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005) (holding that indictments’ failure 

to allege the element of “absence from the scene of the crime” deprived the trial court of 

subject matter jurisdiction to hear accessory before the fact charges was not preserved for 

review on appeal); see also State v. Watts, 467 S.E.2d 272, 278 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 

5 The Probation Officer used Hope’s convictions under § 370 for purposes of 

qualifying as a “controlled substance” offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). The 

use of Hope’s § 370 offenses as predicate offences is not on appeal.
14

1996). Hope does not contest that South Carolina met its burden to convict him under 

§ 445 in 2013.

At issue here, however, is whether South Carolina’s definition of “a controlled 

substance,” matches the federal definition of “a serious drug offense” under the ACCA. At 

the time of his conviction, South Carolina defined “a controlled substance” as a “drug, 

substance, or immediate precursor in Schedules I through V in Sections 44-53-190, 44-53-

210, 44-53-230, 44-53-250, and 44-53-270.” S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-110(6). Moreover, 

South Carolina included marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, see § 44-53-

190(D)(11), and defined “marijuana” as:

(i) all species or variety of the marijuana plant and all parts thereof whether 

growing or not;

(ii) the seeds of the marijuana plant;

(iii) the resin extracted from any part of the marijuana plant; or

(iv) every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation 

of the marijuana plant, marijuana seeds, or marijuana resin.

S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-110(27)(a) (emphasis added). South Carolina also defined 

“marijuana” as not including the mature stalks of the plant (or its derivatives), oil from the 

plant, and some authorized uses. See S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-110 (27)(b). Thus, at the 

time of Hope’s state convictions in May 2013, South Carolina defined marijuana as “all 

species or variety of the marijuana plant” and did not exempt hemp or differentiate 

marijuana by its THC levels.6

6 In 2014, after Hope’s predicate convictions but before his federal conviction for 

felon in possession of a firearm, South Carolina allowed the legal use of “industrial hemp” 

which it defined as “all parts and varieties of the plant cannabis sativa, cultivated or 

possessed by a licensed grower, whether growing or not, that contain of no more 

(Continued)
15

D.

Hope argues that the “controlled substance” element of his South Carolina offense, 

under § 445, is broader than the federal definition of “controlled substance” because, after 

the 2018 Farm Bill and at the time of his federal sentencing, Congress did not define 

marijuana plants or its parts with less than 0.3 percent THC as marijuana, whereas South 

Carolina did. See Opening Br. at 9; see also 21 U.S.C.A. § 802(16)(B) (defining “hemp” 

as cannabis with less than 0.3 percent THC, which is not a controlled substance). Second, 

Hope argues that we should not use the modified approach because § 445 is indivisible as 

to drug type. See Opening Br. at 14. We agree.

Since, at the time of Hope’s state convictions, South Carolina defined marijuana as 

“all species or variety of the marijuana plant,” and did not exempt hemp or differentiate 

marijuana by its THC levels, see S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-110(27)(a) (2013), and because 

at the time of his federal conviction, Congress defined marijuana as not including hemp, 

we hold that the South Carolina statute is broader than the federal definition. Thus, we 

hold that the district court erred in finding that Hope’s state offenses qualified as predicate 

offenses for the ACCA enhancement.

1.

As an initial matter, we have already held that § 445 is divisible as to drug conduct. 

See Marshall, 747 F. App’x at 149 (considering whether defendant’s South Carolina 

tetrahydrocannabinol concentration than adopted by federal law in the Controlled 

Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq.” S.C. Code § 46-55-10(2) (2014).
16

predicate offenses under §§ 3707 and 445 qualified for purposes of the ACCA and 

referencing United States v. Rodriguez-Negrete, 772 F.3d 221, 226–27 (5th Cir. 2014),

which held that Section 370 is divisible); see also Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 468 

F.3d 213, 219 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining that our unpublished decisions are “entitled . . .

to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning”) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

In Marshall, the defendant was charged with three felonies: (1) possession with 

intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; (2) possession of a firearm 

in connection with a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and (3) 

being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). 747 F. 

App’x at 140–41. Marshall was previously convicted in South Carolina of three counts of 

§ 445, and of one count of § 370. Id. at 149. At sentencing, the district court determined 

that Marshall’s three § 445 predicate offenses qualified under the ACCA. Id. at 142.

Like Hope does here, Marshall at sentencing also argued that his predicate offenses 

did not qualify for purposes of the ACCA because §§ 370 and 445 were broader than the 

federal offense. 747 F. App’x at 149. Marshall also argued that the modified categorical 

approach did not apply. Id. In an unpublished opinion, Judge Keenan wrote for the 

majority, holding that although the South Carolina statutes “govern a broader range of 

7 Section 370 makes it a crime “to manufacture, distribute, dispense, deliver, 

purchase, aid, abet, attempt, or conspire to manufacture, distribute, dispense, deliver, or 

purchase, or possess with the intent to manufacture, distribute, dispense, deliver, or 

purchase a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue.” S.C. Code Ann. § 44-

53-370(a)(1).
17

conduct than the ACCA or the career offender guideline by prohibiting the mere ‘purchase’ 

of narcotics,” the statutes are divisible and subject to the modified categorical approach 

because the statutes set forth “alternative elements constituting separate crimes.” Marshall, 

747 F. App’x at 149–50 (citing Cabrera-Umanzor, 728 F.3d at 352). In making its

determination, the Marshall court considered “how South Carolina prosecutors charge the 

offenses, the elements on which South Carolina juries are instructed, and the manner in 

which South Carolina courts treat convictions under these statutes.” Id. at 150 (citing 

Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2290 (stating that “[a] prosecutor charging a violation of a divisible 

statute must generally select the relevant element from its list of alternatives,” and the jury 

must find that element unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt)).8

8 The Marshall court first considered that South Carolina courts “treat the purchase 

of a controlled substance as a crime distinct from possession with intent to distribute under

§ 370. 747 F. App’x at 150 (citing State v. Watson, No. 2013-UP-312, 2013 WL 8538756, 

at *2 (S.C. Ct. App. July 3, 2013) (upholding the indictment and jury form listing purchase 

and possession with intent to distribute separately)). Second, Marshall noted that South 

Carolina “charge[d] one of the listed statutory alternatives in state court indictments.” Id.

(citing Carter v. State, 495 S.E.2d 773, 776–77 (S.C. 1998), which stated that the 

indictment is captioned “Manufacturing Methamphetamine 44-53-370,” and that “the plain 

language of the body of the indictment clearly notifies [the defendant] that he is charged 

with manufacturing methamphetamine”). Finally, the Marshall court noted that “South 

Carolina juries typically are instructed to find one of the alternative elements listed in the 

statute beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing State v. Gill, 584 S.E.2d 432 (S.C. Ct. App. 

June 23, 2003), which listed the elements for “distribution of crack cocaine”). Thus, 

Marshall concluded that “§§ 44-53-370 and 445 set forth alternative elements (for drug 

conduct), and [], therefore, the statutes are subject to review under the modified categorical 

approach.” Id. Then, Marshall applied the modified categorical approach and found that 

“the South Carolina offense of possession with intent to distribute also matches the 

definition of a “controlled substance offense” under the career offender guideline.” Id. at 

151. Thus, possession, distribution, manufacture, and possession with intent to distribute 

a controlled substance are alternative elements that correspond to separate crimes under 

§ 445.
18

Following Marshall, we have maintained that §§ 445 and 370 are divisible as to 

drug conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Coker, 794 F. App’x 341 (4th Cir. 2020) (per 

curiam), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 175 (2020) (holding that South Carolina Code § 44-53-

375 and § 445 are subject to the modified categorical approach); United States v. Furlow, 

928 F.3d 311, 320–22 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that § 375(B) (2018), which punishes 

various methamphetamine and crack cocaine offenses, is divisible and subject to the 

modified categorical approach), vacated and remanded on other grounds by Furlow v.

United States, 140 S. Ct. 2824, (2020) (remanding in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 

S. Ct. 2191 (2019));

9 see also Riley v. South Carolina, 82 F. Supp. 2d 474, 478 (D.S.C. 

2000) (holding that a conviction for §§ 375(B) and 445(B)(3) did not violate double 

jeopardy because they are not the same offense as the intent of the South Carolina 

legislature was for § 445 to impose cumulative penalties on top of § 375).

We note two critical distinctions between Marshall and the case at bar. First, in 

Marshall, the defendant was sentenced before the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law and 

thus, the Marshall court used the same modified categorical analysis we do here but found 

that there was a match.

9 Unlike § 445, which only lists “controlled substance,” § 44-53-375(B) provides 

that any person “who manufactures, distributes, dispenses, delivers, purchases, or 

otherwise aids, abets, attempts, or conspires to manufacture, distribute, dispense, deliver, 

or purchase, or possess with intent to distribute, dispense, or deliver methamphetamine or 

cocaine base” is guilty of a felony. See also United States v. Cheeseboro, 757 F. App’x 

224, 227 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding that § 375(b) is divisible); United States v. Sulton, 740 

F. App’x 45, 46 (4th Cir. 2018) (same).
19

Second, though the instant case also involves § 445, and, thus, we affirm that it is 

divisible as to drug conduct, the parties disagree on whether § 445 is also divisible as to 

drug type—a question the Marshall court did not reach. Compare Resp. Br. at 12–15 with

Reply Br. at 7–14. The Government notes that the South Carolina Supreme Court held that 

a defendant who was charged with trafficking marijuana and trafficking cocaine, under 

§ 44-53-370(e)(1)(b), did not violate double jeopardy because marijuana was a separate 

element of a § 370(e) offense. State v. Wilson, 429 S.E.2d 453, 454 (S.C. 1993), abrogated

on other grounds by State v. Easler, 489 S.E.2d 617 (S.C. 1997). But see, United States v. 

Barcenas-Yanez, 826 F.3d 752, 757 (4th Cir. 2015) (clarifying that “[o]nly when the law 

requires that in order to convict the defendant the jury must unanimously agree that he 

committed a particular substantive offense contained within the disjunctively worded 

statute are we able to conclude that the statute contains alternative elements and not 

alternative means”). Moreover, the Government argues that though the majority in 

Marshall primarily examined the elements for § 370, the court noted that the only 

difference between §§ 370 and 445 was that § 445 “adds the additional element of engaging 

in a drug offense within a certain proximity of a school or public park.” See Marshall, 747 

F. App’x at 149. Thus, the Government argues that “[i]t would be illogical to hold that 

drug substance is only a means under Section 445 even though Section 370 and 445 are 

both divisible by conduct, and [] drug substance is an element of Section 370.” Resp. Br. 

at 14. The dissent also agrees with the Government that § 445 is divisible by drug type. 

See Dissenting Op. 39–40.
20

On the other hand, Hope argues that § 445 is indivisible as to drug type “on its face,” 

see Reply Br. at 7, because the statute requires that the state prove only that the defendant 

“distributed, sold, manufactured, or unlawfully possessed with intent to distribute a 

‘controlled substance’ knowing he was within proximity of a school,” id. at 8 (emphasis 

added).

The South Carolina Supreme Court has not clarified whether § 445 is indivisible as 

to drug type. On its face, and unlike drug conduct, § 445 is not divisible as to drug type

because the statute penalizes the “distribut[ion], [sale], purchase, manufacture, or [the]

unlawful[] possess[ion] with intent to distribute, a controlled substance.” (emphasis 

added); see Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2256 (instructing that to determine divisibility, we begin 

by looking to the plain text of the statute to identify alternative elements or punishments); 

see also United States v. Allred, 942 F.3d 641, 649 (4th Cir. 2019) (same) The plain 

language suggests that while a defendant may be charged for various drug conduct, the 

government need only prove that there was “a controlled substance” involved in the 

offense. See Schad v. Arizona, 111 S. Ct. 2491, 2506 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring with 

plurality that “it has long been the general rule that when a single crime can be committed 

in various ways, jurors need not agree upon the mode of commission.”). Thus, while the 

drug conduct (i.e., distribution, sale, purchase, manufacturing, or possession with intent to 

distribute) portion of the generic § 445 offense is divisible, the remaining portion of the 
21

§ 445 is not because the two remaining elements, i.e., controlled substance and proximity 

to a school, are not further divisible.10

Indeed, the Supreme Court long-ago rejected a fact-approach which would “deny[] 

any real distinction between divisible and indivisible statutes extending further than the 

generic offense.” Descamps, 111 S. Ct. at 2499.11 The Court clarified that while lower 

courts may “modify the categorical approach to accommodate alternative ‘statutory 

definitions,’ [t]hey may not, by pretending that every fact pattern is an ‘implied’ statutory 

definition, convert that approach into its opposite.” Id. (quoting Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d 

at 927) (emphasis in original).

10 We note that the Supreme Court has cautioned us on the “erroneous assumption 

that any statutory alternatives are ipso facto independent elements defining independent 

crimes under state law, and therefore subject to the axiomatic principle that the prosecution 

must prove independently every element of the crime.” Schad, 111 S. Ct. at 2499

(emphasis in original). Thus, as we do here and as the Marshall court did, rather than 

“substitute our own interpretations of state statutes,” we must look to whether the state 

court has determined that “certain statutory alternatives are mere means of committing a 

single offense” or whether they are, indeed, alternative statutory elements. Id. (emphasis 

added). Accordingly, in situations, such as here, where the § 445 does not list statutory 

alternatives for “controlled substance” we must proceed with caution so as not to read 

alternative statutory elements, and divisibility, where they do not exist.

11 In Descamps, for example, the petitioner was convicted of being a felon in 

possession of a firearm. Id. at 254. Like Hope, petitioner Descamps had three prior 

convictions, including for violating a California statute, § 459, for burglary which provides 

that a “person who enters” certain locations, even lawfully, “with intent to commit grand 

or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.” Id. The district court applied the 

ACCA enhancement holding that Descamps’ state offenses were “violent felon[ies]” under

§ 924(e)(2)(B). The Ninth Circuit affirmed by reasoning that because Descamps’ plea 

colloquy rested on facts satisfying the elements of the generic burglary offense (i.e., that 

he entered unlawfully), his state offense was a match. See United States v. Aguila-Montes

de Oca, 655 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth

Circuit’s approach.
22

With respect to our case, § 445 only requires that the state prove that Hope (1) 

distributed, sold, purchased, manufactured, or unlawfully possessed with intent to 

distribute, (2) a controlled substance, (3) in proximity to a school. Thus, the particular facts 

alleged about the kind of controlled substance involved in the offense would not alter the 

elements required for the offense and, importantly, would not be evidence that the statute 

is further divisible as to drug type. Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294, 2303 (2009)

(modified categorical approach can be used to “determin[e] which statutory phrase 

(contained within a statutory provision that covers several different generic crimes) 

covered a prior conviction”).

Nevertheless, in addition to the text, and the dissent notes, we may also consult a 

limited number of documents such as jury instructions and charging documents to 

determine whether a statute is divisible. Mathis, 136 S. Ct at 2249. We begin with Hope’s 

charging documents which alleged that he “distribute[d]. . . marijuana, a controlled 

substance” in proximity to a school. J.A. 123, 138, 148. The wording of the charging 

document indicates that marijuana is a means to satisfy the “controlled substance” element

because it may be modified to account for other facts, or drug types, involved. See 

Descamps, 113 S. Ct. at 2291 (clarifying that “every fact pattern” is not a different 

offense.). As the Supreme Court instructs, an indivisible statute is one that is a single crime 

that may “spell [] out various factual ways,” or “means,” “of committing some component 
23

of the offense.” Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2249.12 While Hope’s indictment could have alleged

any number of drug types instead of marijuana, the key element (a controlled substance)

would remain unchanged. As noted by the dissent, the South Carolina pattern jury 

instructions “direct the trial court to ‘[i]nsert the applicable controlled substance’ when 

giving the instruction for a § 44-53-445 charge.” Dissenting Op. at 40 (quoting Ralph King 

Anderson, Jr., Anderson’s South Carolina Requests to Charge – Criminal § 4-15 n.3 (2d 

ed. 2012)). This further indicates that the trial court is directed to insert the factual means 

by which the defendant violated the “controlled substance” element of the offense. Still,

we recognize that to convict a defendant under § 445, South Carolina must prove that “the 

substance upon analysis was, in fact, [the alleged controlled substance].” Brown, 343 S.C. 

at 347–48 (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by Gentry, 363 S.C. 93. Because 

the statute only requires that the state prove that Hope possessed a “controlled substance,” 

the alleged specific substance only matters to the extent that it is used to prove that it is in 

fact a controlled substance.

After examining the external documents, we recognize that the question of whether 

§ 445 is divisible as to drug type could be close. Still, we find that the best reading of § 445 

12 In Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2249, the Supreme Court provided an example of a statute 

with alternative means of commission:

[S]uppose a statute requires use of a “deadly weapon” as an element 

of a crime and further provides that the use of a “knife, gun, bat, or similar 

weapon” would all qualify. Because that kind of list merely specifies diverse 

means of satisfying a single element of a single crime . . . a jury need not find 

(or a defendant admit) any particular item: A jury could convict even if some 

jurors concluded that the defendant used a knife while others concluded he 

used a gun, so long as all agreed that the defendant used a “deadly weapon.”
24

is that drug type is a means to commit the crime. We hinge our reading also on the fact 

that the South Carolina Supreme Court has clarified that juries do not need to unanimously 

agree on the same factual means, so long as they agree that the element of the offense is 

met (e.g., a jury need not agree on whether Hope had marijuana or cocaine, so long as they 

agree that he had a “controlled substance”). See, e.g., State v. Adams, 845 S.E.2.d 217, 224

(S.C. Ct. App. May 20, 2020) (holding that “[t]here is no ambiguity in the text, which tells 

us flatly an element that must be proven is a ‘sexual battery,’ a phrase that is defined 

elsewhere in the state code to include alternative acts”). Also, we note that the South 

Carolina Supreme Court has not signaled that § 445 is divisible as to drug type which limits 

our interpretation of § 445. See Najera-Rodriguez v. Barr, 926 F.3d 343, 356 (7th Cir. 

2019), reh’g denied (Aug. 23, 2019) (holding that “[t]o reduce th[e] risk [of incorrectly 

interpreting a state statute], we need to insist on clear signals—signals that convince us to 

a certainty that the elements are correct and support divisibility before imposing additional 

federal consequences for those state convictions”).13

13 Various sister circuits have held that when neither the plain language nor a state 

supreme court clarify whether an element of “controlled substance” is further divisible by 

drug type, this is, generally, a signal that it is indivisible as to drug type. See, e.g., Harbin 

v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 58, 64–68 (2d Cir. 2017); United States v. Aviles, 938 F.3d 503, 512–

14 (3d Cir. 2019); Alejos-Perez v. Garland, 991 F.3d 642, 652 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that 

a Texas statute that criminalized possession of a substance in “Penalty Group 2-A” was not 

divisible); United States v. Garcia, 948 F.3d 789, 794 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. 

Elder, 900 F.3d 491, 502–03 (7th Cir. 2018) (explaining that an Arizona statute that 

criminalized conduct related to “dangerous drugs”—a broad category that was defined 

elsewhere in the statutes—was not divisible by substance); Najera-Rodriguez v. Barr, 926 

F.3d 343, 351–52 (7th Cir. 2019); United States v. Graves, 925 F.3d 1036, 1039–41 (9th 

Cir. 2019); United States v. Cantu, 964 F.3d 924, 928–34 (10th Cir. 2020).
25

After concluding that § 445 is indivisible as to drug type, we must determine 

whether South Carolina’s definition of “a controlled substance” matches the federal 

definition of “controlled substance” for purposes of qualifying as “a serious drug offense” 

under the ACCA. Since we previously determined that § 445 is divisible as to drug 

conduct, then we still employ the modified categorical approach to compare the South 

Carolina controlled substance schedule with the federal schedule. As the government 

concedes, see Resp. Br. at 12, the federal drug schedules and South Carolina drug schedules 

plainly do not match. Namely, the South Carolina drug Schedule IV lists forty-five drug 

substances, see S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-250, whereas the federal drug Schedule IV only 

lists eleven, see 21 U.S.C. § 812. Therefore, in South Carolina, the least culpable conduct 

required to violate § 445 would not be criminalized under the federal code. See Shular,

140 S. Ct. at 783 (applying the conduct-method approach to determine whether a state 

offense is a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA); see also Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 

S. Ct. 1678, 1684 (2013) (explaining that under the categorical approach a court is to look 

to “‘the least of the acts’ criminalized, and then determine whether even those acts are 

encompassed by the generic federal offense.”) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 130 S.

Ct. 1265, 1269 (2010))). Accordingly, and as the dissent agrees, there is no match.

2.

Though our categorical analysis could end here, we note that even if § 445 were 

divisible by drug type, the modified categorical approach would yield the same outcome: 

there is no match.
26

Before moving to compare the federal and state definitions of a “controlled 

substance,” we need to clarify which definitions we are using. Here, we will compare the 

definition of “marijuana” under federal law at the time of Hope’s sentencing, on August 

12, 2020, with South Carolina’s definition of “marijuana” at the time he was sentenced for 

his state offenses on May 22, 2013. See United States v. Cornette, 932 F.3d 204, 213 (4th 

Cir. 2019) (holding that we must determine whether, at the time of defendant’s conviction 

“in 1976, the definition of burglary in the Georgia burglary statute criminalized more 

conduct than ACCA generic burglary”).

We, including the dissent, disagree with the Government’s contention that the status 

of a prior state conviction under the ACCA is determined by “the [federal] law that applied 

at the time of that [state] conviction,” not the time of federal sentencing. Resp. Br. at 16 

(citing McNeill v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2218 (2011)). First, the Sentencing Guidelines 

require that a district court use the manual that is “in effect on the date that the defendant 

is sentenced,” unless it would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11;

see also Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2084 (2013) (holding that the Ex Post 

Facto Clause is violated when a change to the Guidelines adopted after the instant offense 

was committed results in an increased sentencing range). Here, the Ex Post Facto Clause 

does not apply. Second, the Government incorrectly relies on McNeill. In McNeill, the 

Supreme Court determined whether the district court should rely on a subsequent change 

in state law to determine whether a previous conviction was a serious drug offense under 

the ACCA. 131 S. Ct. at 2223 (holding that “[i]t cannot be correct that subsequent changes 
27

in state law can erase an earlier conviction for ACCA purposes”).14 The instant matter 

concerns changes to federal law, not state law. As our sister court has noted:

it would be illogical to conclude that federal sentencing law attaches 

‘culpability and dangerousness’ to an act that, at the time of sentencing, 

Congress has concluded is not culpable and dangerous. Such a view would 

prevent amendments to federal criminal law from affecting federal 

sentencing and would hamper Congress’ ability to revise federal criminal 

law.

United States v. Bautista, 989 F.3d 698, 703 (9th Cir. 2021)15. Thus, McNeill does not 

prohibit us from considering changes to federal law for the purposes of the ACCA.

14 In McNeill, the defendant was convicted of a felon unlawfully in possession of a 

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court determined 

that McNeill qualified for ACCA’s sentencing enhancement based, in part, on six prior 

North Carolina drug-trafficking convictions. At the time that McNeill committed those 

state crimes, they each carried a 10–year maximum sentence, which McNeill received. 

However, because the State later reduced the maximum sentence for those offenses to less 

than 10 years, McNeill argued that none of his six prior convictions were for “serious drug 

offenses” within the meaning of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). The district court rejected McNeill’s 

request that it look to current state law and held that the ACCA requires courts to conduct 

a “backward-looking” inquiry into prior convictions, meaning that courts must “consult the 

law that applied at the time of th[ose] conviction[s].” McNeill, 131 S. Ct. at 2222. Both 

the Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed the district court. For further examples, 

see Boulanger v. United States, 978 F.3d 24, 30 n.6 (1st Cir. 2020) (“Congress intended 

courts to use the ‘historical statute of conviction’ when analyzing ACCA cases, not a 

modern, amended version” (quoting McNeill, 131 S. Ct. at 2223)); Rivera v. United States, 

716 F.3d 685, 688 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate 

felony for the ACCA sentencing enhancement is determined by looking to state law 

existing at the time of that conviction.”).

15 In a similar case, the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant’s prior Arizona state 

court conviction of attempted transportation of marijuana, under a state statute that 

criminalized attempted transportation of hemp as well as marijuana, was not a categorical 

match with generic federal offense at time of his federal sentencing for the purposes of the 

ACCA. Bautista, 989 F.3d at 705.
28

3.

Accordingly, after considering whether South Carolina’s 2013 definition for 

“marijuana” matches the February 2020 federal definition for “marijuana,” we, including 

the dissent, hold that there is no categorical match.

As detailed above, on August 12, 2020, when Hope was sentenced for felon in 

possession of a firearm, Congress defined “marijuana” as “all parts of the plant Cannabis 

sativa L,” see 21 U.S.C.A. § 802(16)(A) (emphasis added), except for “hemp,” as defined 

in section 1639o of Title 7. 21 U.S.C. § 802(16)(B) (Effective December 21, 2018). Hemp 

was defined as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. . . . with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol 

concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” 7 U.S.C.A. § 1639o(1) 

(emphasis added). In comparison, at the time of Hope’s state convictions, on May 22, 

2013, South Carolina defined “marijuana” as “all species or variety of the marijuana plant

and all parts thereof,” and did not carve out any exemption for “hemp” until 2014. S.C. 

Code Ann. § 44-53-110(27)(a) (emphasis added).

Even if we did find that § 445 was divisible and used Hope’s state documents to 

identify which drug type is associated with his conviction under § 445, our inquiry would 

not yield a different outcome. See Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2257 (explaining that sentencing 

court can take a “peek” at record documents, such as indictment, when “state law fails to 

provide clear answers” on divisibility). In all, Hope’s state documents only describe that he 
29

was convicted of “marijuana, a controlled substance” as defined by South Carolina Code 

§ 44-53-445 in 2013.16

Thus, because South Carolina’s definition of “marijuana,” as defined in 2013, is 

broader than the definition of “marijuana,” as defined by the 2018 Farm Bill in 21 U.S.C. 

§ 802, there is no categorical match. That is, South Carolina’s 2013 “marijuana” definition 

also criminalized “hemp,” whereas, at the time of his federal sentence, the federal code no 

longer criminalized hemp.17 Accordingly, Hope’s prior state convictions do not meet the 

16 For example, Hope was first convicted with Distribution of Marijuana in 

Proximity of a Park, occurring on or about November 12, 2010. See J.A. 123. The 

indictment described that Hope “distribute[d]. . . marijuana, a controlled substance.” Id.

(emphasis added). However, the indictment did not specify the THC level. The PSR also 

noted that “according to the York County Sherriff’s Office warrant affidavits, [Hope] 

distributed 6 grams of marijuana to another individual.” J.A. 146 (emphasis added). 

However, the drug amount is irrelevant for our analysis. Second, Hope was convicted of 

Distribution of Marijuana in Proximity of a School or Park, occurring on or about July 2, 

2012. See J.A. 149 at ¶ 20. Based on his indictment, Hope “distribut[ed]. . . marijuana, a 

controlled substance, within one-half mile radius of the grounds of said schools or parks.” 

J.A. 138 (emphasis added). Based on the PSR, “according to York County Sheriff’s Office 

warrant affidavits, on July 2, 2012, [Hope] possessed 36.8 grams of marijuana and 

packaged in 37 separate bags.” J.A. 147 (emphasis added). Again, the affidavit and 

indictment did not provide a THC analysis to show that Hope possessed marijuana with 

greater than 0.3 percent THC. Finally, Hope was convicted of “Possession with Intent to 

Distribute Marijuana in Proximity of a School,” occurring on or about April 30, 2013. See

J.A. 148 at ¶ 19. Based on the indictment, Hope “posess[ed] with intent to distribute 

marijuana.” J.A. 135 (emphasis added).

17 In determining whether a controlled substance qualifies as marijuana, sister 

circuits have indicated that “THC tests need not be performed on each plant where 

sufficiently reliable testimony identifies the plants as marijuana.” See United States v. 

Madkour, 930 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 308 (1991); see also 

United States v. Coslet, 987 F.2d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1993) (same); United States v.

Northrop, 972 F. Supp. 183, 185 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that the “presence of THC is 

not required for a plant to be considered marihuana under 21 U.S.C. § 802(16)”); United

States v. Malbrough, 922 F.2d 458, 464–65 (8th Cir. 1990) (upholding trial court finding 

(Continued)
30

definition of “a serious drug offense,” and, therefore, should not have triggered the ACCA 

minimum sentence enhancement.

E.

As noted above, even if we were to adopt plain error review, the outcome would be 

the same.18 An error is plain when it is “‘clear’ or, equivalently, ‘obvious’... under current 

law.” Olano, 113 S. Ct. at 1777 (1993) (quoting United States v. Young, 105 S. Ct. 1038, 

1047, n.14 (1985)). We have further clarified that an error is plain “if the settled law of 

the Supreme Court or this circuit establishes that an error has occurred.” United States v. 

Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has 

also instructed that irrespective of “whether a legal question was settled or unsettled at the 

time of [the district court’s decision], it is enough that an error be ‘plain’ at the time of 

of 75 marijuana plants for sentencing purposes, concluding that government count of 100 

plants may have been inflated by inclusion of tomato plants), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2907

(1991). We have not adopted such a standard and do not need to do so for this case.

18 The Government points to United States v. Crocco, 15 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2021), 

in which petitioner raised, for the first time in a supplemental brief and after oral argument, 

that his prior Virginia convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, see

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-247(D) (as amended by 2019 Va. Acts ch. 653), should not qualify 

as a “controlled substance” for purposes of the career offender sentencing guideline under 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) because of the federal legalization of hemp after the 2018 Farm bill. 

The Crocco court held that “even putting waiver aside, Crocco cannot establish plain error 

due to the myriad unanswered, unbriefed questions described above.” Here, however, the 

instant matter is distinguishable from Crocco because Crocco clearly waived his argument 

as it was raised after oral argument, and it was not fully briefed. Second, the panel made 

its decision on the fact that there were many “unanswered, unbriefed questions” which 

made Crocco’s argument unclear and not obvious. The panel did not substantively rule on 

the question as a matter of law.
31

appellate consideration” to constitute plain error. Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 

1121, 1127 (2013) (citation and internal grammatical marks omitted).

Here, and as the dissent agrees, there was an error. Still, the dissent departs with us 

by holding that the error was not plain because there were unsettled questions of law with 

respect to “which version of 21 U.S.C. § 802 the district court should consult when 

determining whether a defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA ‘serious drug 

offense.’” See Dissenting Op. at 43. However, and as detailed above, we have settled that 

when employing the categorical approach to determine whether a state offense qualifies as 

a predicate offense for ACCA purposes, we conduct a “backward-looking” inquiry that 

“consults the [state] law that applied at the time of th[ose] conviction[s].” Cornette, 932 

F.3d at 213 (quoting McNeill, 131 S. Ct. at 2222 and then citing Rivera, 716 F.3d at 688 

(2d Cir. 2013) (clarifying that “[w]hether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate felony 

for the ACCA sentencing enhancement is determined by looking to state law existing at 

the time of that conviction.”)). Indeed, in conducting an ACCA categorical analysis, the 

Supreme Court has looked back to the version of the state statute and penalties when the 

petitioner was convicted and compared it with the relevant federal provision at the time of 

the petitioner’s federal sentencing. See United States v. Rodriquez, 128 S. Ct. 1783, 1786–

87 (2008) (looking back to the 1994 statute to determine whether the statute’s “maximum 

term of imprisonment” referenced applicable recidivist enhancements for the purposes of 

an ACCA enhancement.). Our approach here is the same. Furthermore, district courts are

instructed to use the federal sentencing manual that is “in effect on the date that the 

defendant is sentenced.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). While the dissent is correct to 
32

note that we have not engaged in this specific analysis for 21 U.S.C. § 802, the backwardlooking method to compare the definition of the state offense at the time of the state 

conviction with the federal law at the time of federal sentencing for purposes of the ACCA 

enhancement is settled law.

Thus, we find that the error was plain because, prior to our review, we had already 

clarified how and when to use the modified categorical approach and how to conduct the 

backward-looking comparison for the categorical approach. Specifically, we had provided 

district courts with guidance on how to apply this approach to the South Carolina statute at 

issue. See Marshall, 747 F. App’x at 149. Indeed, the key difference between Hope’s case

today and Marshall is that Hope was sentenced after the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into

law. Though our methodology and reasoning are the same as Marshall, the change to the 

federal code yields a different result.

We also find that this error affected Hope’s substantial rights because he was 

sentenced to a mandatory of 180-months, or 15-years, of imprisonment under § 924(e)(1). 

Without the error, Hope’s advisory guidelines would have been 135-168 months of 

imprisonment with a statutory maximum of 10-years. J.A. 154; PSR ¶ 55. Because the 

incorrect application of law resulted in an unjustified increased minimum sentence for 

Hope, our failure to correct the district court’s error “would result in a miscarriage of justice 

or would otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” United States v. Whitfield, 695 F.3d 288, 303 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941, 954 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks 

omitted)); see also Wiborg v. United States, 16 S. Ct. 1127, 1137 (1896) (“although this 
33

question was not properly raised, yet if a plain error was committed in a matter so 

absolutely vital to defendants, we feel ourselves at liberty to correct it”).

IV.

For these reasons, we conclude that Hope’s predicate state offenses are not a 

categorical match under the ACCA and, thus, Hope’s sentence is

VACATED AND REMANDED.
34

THACKER, J., dissenting:

I agree with the majority that the district court erred when it sentenced Appellant 

Soterio Lamar Hope (“Appellant”) pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 

18 U.S.C. § 924(e). However, because in my view, we review for plain error, and the 

district court’s error was not plain, I would affirm the district court.

I.

As the majority correctly points out, “[w]hether a prior conviction qualifies as a 

predicate offense under [ACCA] is a question of statutory construction” that we generally 

review de novo. United States v. Baxter, 642 F.3d 475, 476 (4th Cir. 2011). But “[w]hen 

a defendant has not properly preserved [that] issue by presenting it to the district court . . . 

we review his appellate contention for plain error only.” United States v. Furlow, 928 F.3d 

311, 317 (4th Cir. 2019), vacated on other grounds, 140 S. Ct. 2824 (2020) (mem); United 

States v. Pendergraph, 388 F.3d 109, 113 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because this objection was not 

raised at sentencing, we review it for plain error.”).

When Appellant objected to the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) in the 

district court, he challenged the PSR’s use of his South Carolina Code § 44-53-445 

convictions as ACCA predicate offenses. However, Appellant did not argue that these 

prior convictions do not qualify as “serious drug offenses,” which is the argument he now 

makes on appeal. Instead, he argued that he “pled to a duplicitous indictment in state court” 

that “charged him with multiple offenses in a single count” based on our holding in United 

States v. Marshall, 747 F. App’x 139 (4th Cir. 2018), that § 44-53-445 “is a divisible 
35

statute.” J.A. 159 (sealed).1 As Appellant conceded before the district court, his 

“duplicitous indictment” argument is foreclosed by Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 

(2001), and Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994), which preclude a defendant from 

challenging at his federal sentencing a prior conviction used to enhance his federal 

sentence.

“To preserve an argument on appeal, the defendant must object on the same basis 

below as he contends is error on appeal.” United States v. Zayyad, 741 F.3d 452, 459 (4th 

Cir. 2014). But, here, Appellant never argued -- either in written objections to the PSR 

or at sentencing -- “that his prior South Carolina convictions were not serious drug offenses 

as a matter of law under the ACCA.” Ante at 4. He also never argued “that the South 

Carolina statute was divisible and that though the Fourth Circuit previously held that it was 

a categorical match, this was no longer true because Congress decriminalized hemp in 

2018.” Id. at 5. The majority’s assertions to the contrary are at odds with the record in this 

case. For that reason, Appellant is not, as the majority concludes, merely “adding a finer 

point to his objection raised below.” Id. at 7. Therefore, the governing standard of review 

in this appeal is plain error.

Yet, the majority suggests that a defendant may make a new argument in support of 

a claim he raised in the district court and still be entitled to de novo review of that claim. 

Ante at 6–7. However, unlike the defendant in United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293 

1 Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.
36

(4th Cir. 2014) -- which the majority cites in support of its argument -- Appellant does not 

merely raise a new argument. Appellant raises an entirely new claim in this appeal.

The defendant in Robinson challenged in the district court a two-point increase to 

his criminal history score that resulted from a prior conviction for selling marijuana. 744 

F.3d at 297. On appeal, he presented a different argument about why that prior conviction 

should not have resulted in the two-point increase. Id. at 300. Even though it had not 

addressed that precise argument, the district court in Robinson nonetheless had an 

opportunity to evaluate whether the two-point increase to the defendant’s criminal history 

score was appropriate and made a specific finding that it was. The same was true in United 

States v. Green, 996 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2021), which the majority also references and which 

relied on Robinson. The defendant in Green objected to his career offender enhancement 

in the district court by arguing that his prior conviction was not a “crime of violence” 

because the definition of that term in the Sentencing Guidelines was vague. 996 F.3d at 

178–79. On appeal, he argued that the elements of his prior conviction did not match the 

“crime of violence” definition. See id. at 179–84. Therefore, the defendant in Green

signaled to the district court that it needed to consider whether his prior conviction qualified 

as a “crime of violence,” and the district court did so.

Here, though, the district court would likely be blindsided to learn that Appellant’s 

“duplicitous indictment” argument -- which, again, Appellant conceded at sentencing was 

“foreclosed on Supreme Court precedent,” J.A. 102 -- should have triggered the district 

court to explicitly evaluate whether Appellant’s § 44-53-445 convictions qualified as 

ACCA serious drug offenses. The majority avers that the United States “admits that the 
37

district court specifically responded to [Appellant’s] ACCA objection which indicates that 

the district court understood [his] claim.” Ante at 6 n.3 (citing Resp. Br. at 15). This is a 

strained reading of the United States’s argument, which is merely an assertion “that 

[Appellant] was convicted of three [§ 44-53-445] marijuana offenses.” Resp. Br. at 15. In 

any event, the district court only adopted that finding in the PSR because it was 

unchallenged.

“The entire purpose of an objection is to alert the district court to the actual basis of 

asserted error.” United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2012). But Appellant 

did not raise an objection that would indicate to the district court that it needed to look 

more deeply into whether Appellant’s § 44-53-445 convictions met ACCA’s definition of 

a “serious drug offense.” Because Appellant did not afford the district court a chance to 

correct the error he now claims on appeal that it made, our review should be for plain error.

II.

Turning to the merits of this case, I conclude, like the majority, that the district court 

erred by sentencing Appellant to ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum. However, I reach 

that conclusion in a slightly different way.

A.

ACCA applies to a defendant who is convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) “and has three previous convictions by any court . . . for 

a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from 

one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). As relevant in this case, ACCA defines a “serious 

drug offense” as “an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or 
38

possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in 

[21 U.S.C. § 802]), for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is 

prescribed by law.” Id. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).

In order to determine whether a defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA 

predicate offense, we use the “categorical approach,” which “requires us to analyze only 

the elements of the offense in question, rather than the specific means by which the 

defendant committed the crime.” United States v. Roof, 10 F.4th 314, 398 (4th Cir. 2021) 

(per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). When applying the categorical approach 

to assess whether a defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA “serious drug 

offense,” we evaluate whether the elements of the statute serving as the basis for the prior 

conviction demonstrate that the prior conviction satisfies the criteria of ACCA’s definition 

of a “serious drug offense.” Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 787 (2020).

If the statute the defendant was convicted of violating has a “divisible” structure --

i.e., it “list[s] elements in the alternative, and thereby defines multiple crimes” -- we apply 

the “modified categorical approach” instead. Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 

2249 (2016). “Under that approach, [we] look[] to a limited class of documents (for 

example, the indictment, jury instructions, or plea agreement of colloquy) to determine 

what crime, with what elements, a defendant was convicted of.” Id. (first citing Shepard 

v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005); and then citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 

575, 602 (1990)). Once we have ascertained the elements of that offense, we can then 

apply the categorical approach as we would for an indivisible statute.
39

The majority, focusing principally on the statutory text, holds that § 44-53-445 is 

not divisible by drug type. Ante at 19–24. But significantly, although we “start with the 

text . . . the focal point of the analysis is what the jury must find (or a defendant must admit) 

to convict.” United States v. Al-Muwwakkil, 983 F.3d 748, 755 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “[O]ffenses are divisible when they consist of alternative 

elements through which the offense may be proved.” United States v. Royal, 731 F.3d 333, 

341 (4th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original) (citing Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 

260 (2013)). The elements of an offense, in contrast to various factual means of violating 

a statute, “are factual circumstances of the offense the jury must find ‘unanimously and 

beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Omargharib v. Holder, 775 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 2014).

Therefore, in addition to the statutory text, we consult “external sources” like jury 

instructions and charging documents to determine whether the statute includes multiple 

crimes or a single crime. Al-Muwwakkil, 983 F.3d at 755–56. To reach our conclusion 

that § 44-53-445 is divisible as to offense conduct, we “consider[ed] how South Carolina 

prosecutors charge the offenses, the elements on which South Carolina juries are instructed, 

and the manner in which South Carolina courts treat convictions under [§ 44-53-445].” 

United States v. Marshall, 747 F. App’x 139, 150 (4th Cir. 2018). Those same sources 

also indicate that the specific controlled substance involved in the violation of § 44-53-445 

is in fact an element of the offense, not a means of commission.

For instance, in State v. Watts, 467 S.E.2d 272, 278 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996), the South 

Carolina Court of Appeals implied that the trial court correctly instructed the jury when it 

included the particular drug -- in that case, crack cocaine -- among “[t]he essential elements 
40

of the offense . . . the State was required to prove.” Indeed, South Carolina’s pattern jury 

instructions direct the trial court to “[i]nsert the applicable controlled substance” when 

giving the instruction for a § 44-53-445 charge. Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Anderson’s 

South Carolina Requests to Charge – Criminal § 4-15 n.3 (2d ed. 2012). And the 

indictment in State v. Gill, 584 S.E.2d 432, 435 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003), like the indictments 

for Appellant’s § 44-53-445 convictions, charged the defendant not with distributing an 

unnamed controlled substance but with distributing a specific drug -- in Gill, crack cocaine. 

This is consistent with the way South Carolina state courts have described § 44-53-445 

offenses. Brown v. State, 540 S.E.2d 846, 849 (S.C. 2001) (calling crime “distribution of 

crack cocaine” and listing “the substance upon analysis was, in fact, crack cocaine” as 

element to be proven by State), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gentry, 610 S.E.2d 

494 (S.C. 2005); State v. Toliver, 403 S.E.2d 676, 676 (S.C. Ct. App. 1991) (describing 

offense as “possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within close proximity of a 

school”).

In short, § 44-53-445 is divisible as to both offense conduct and drug type. 

Therefore, we utilize the modified categorical approach to determine whether Appellant’s 

convictions fit within ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense.”

B.

Applying the modified categorical approach in this case, we must first consult the 

universe of permissible documents from the state-court proceedings resulting in 

Appellant’s prior convictions in order to ascertain the precise offense set forth in § 44-53-

445 of which he was convicted. Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2249 (first citing Shepard, 544 U.S. 
41

at 26; and then citing Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602). The indictments and sentence sheets2

indicate that Appellant was convicted of distribution of marijuana in proximity of a school 

or park for his November 12, 2010 and July 2, 2012 conduct and with possession with 

intent to distribute marijuana in proximity of a school for his April 30, 2013 conduct.

Next, we must decide whether each of those offenses “involve[s] the conduct 

specified in” ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense.” Shular, 140 S. Ct. at 782. A 

prior conviction qualifies as a “serious drug offense” if it is “an offense under State law, 

involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or 

distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in [21 U.S.C. § 802]), for which a maximum 

term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). Appellant’s § 44-53-445 convictions are for distribution and possession 

with intent to distribute, activity that falls within the scope of the “serious drug offense” 

definition. And those convictions carried with them a maximum possible penalty of ten 

years in prison. S.C. Code § 44-53-445(D)(1).

As to the “controlled substance” portion of the “serious drug offense” definition, the 

majority correctly determines that we must compare the South Carolina drug schedules as 

of the date of Appellant’s § 44-53-445 convictions and the federal drug schedules as of the 

date of Appellant’s federal sentencing. Ante at 25–27. We consult the state drug schedules 

at the time of the defendant’s prior state conviction because “ACCA is concerned with 

2 We have previously classified South Carolina sentence sheets as Shepard

documents that can be used in application of the modified categorical approach. E.g., 

United States v. Williams, 997 F.3d 519, 523 (4th Cir. 2021).
42

convictions that have already occurred.” McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816, 820 

(2011). To that end, “[w]hether the prior conviction was [a “serious drug offense”] can 

only be answered by reference to the law under which the defendant was convicted.” Id. 

And ACCA is a federal sentencing statute “intended to affect federal sentencing at the time 

of a defendant’s federal conviction, not at the time of his prior predicate state convictions,” 

so “the predicate status of a state conviction is meant to be determined with reference to 

the law existing at the time of the defendant’s § 922(g) federal sentencing.” United States 

v. Faust, 869 F.3d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 2017) (Lynch, J., dissenting).

The majority also correctly determines that the definition of marijuana in the South 

Carolina drug schedules as of the date of Appellant’s § 44-53-445 convictions is broader 

than the federal definition of marijuana as of the date of Appellant’s federal sentencing 

because the South Carolina definition includes hemp, while the federal definition expressly 

excludes hemp. Id. at 23–25. This discrepancy means that the South Carolina statute is 

not a categorical match for the federal statute. As a result, the district court erred in 

determining that Appellant’s three prior convictions under § 44-53-445 were ACCA 

“serious drug offenses.”

III.

However, the district court’s error was not plain. “There is plain error only when 

(1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) 

the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” United States v. Fall, 955 F.3d 363, 373 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “An error is plain if it is ‘clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable 
43

dispute.’” United States v. Johnson, 945 F.3d 174, 179 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)). Before today, we had not decided which version 

of 21 U.S.C. § 802 the district court should consult when determining whether a 

defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA “serious drug offense.” The majority 

holds -- and I agree -- that we look to the version of 21 U.S.C. § 802 in effect at the time 

of the defendant’s federal sentencing. Even now, none of our sister circuits has decided 

this question. Moreover, their cases addressing which versions of the federal drug 

schedules to apply to the federal Sentencing Guidelines and to removability in the 

immigration context reach opposing conclusions.3

 And we had not yet decided at the time 

of Appellant’s federal sentencing whether § 44-53-445 is divisible by drug substance.

The law on these key issues in this case was thus far from settled at the time of 

Appellant’s federal sentencing. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the 

district court plainly erred by adopting the PSR’s finding that Appellant’s § 44-53-445 

3 Three of our sister circuits -- the First, in United States v. Abdulaziz, 998 F.3d 519, 

531 (1st Cir. 2021); the Sixth, in United States v. Williams, 850 F. App’x 393, 398 (6th Cir. 

2021); and the Ninth, in United States v. Bautista, 989 F.3d 698, 703 (9th Cir. 2021) --

have held that for purposes of determining whether a prior conviction constitutes a 

“controlled substance offense” pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.2 and 2K1.2 or a “drug 

trafficking offense” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, the relevant federal controlled substance 

schedules are the ones applicable at the time of federal sentencing. By contrast, four of our 

sister circuits -- the Second, in Doe v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 203, 208 (2d Cir. 2018); the Third, 

in Martinez v. Attorney General, 906 F.3d 281, 287 (3d Cir. 2018); the Ninth, in MedinaRodriguez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 738, 749 (9th Cir. 2020); and the Eleventh, in Gordon v. 

United States Attorney General, 962 F.3d 1344, 1351 n.4 (11th Cir. 2020) -- have held that 

the federal controlled substance schedules in effect at the time of the non-citizen’s prior 

conviction constitutes an “aggravated felony” for purposes of removability pursuant to 8 

U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
44

convictions were ACCA “serious drug offenses” and sentencing Appellant to ACCA’s 15-

year mandatory minimum sentence. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.