NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 11a0023n.06 No. 08-6523 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. CARDRI CAUS RYAN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

B EF OR E: RO GE RS, S UT TO N, and Mc KE AG UE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. P ER CURIAM . Cardric aus Ry an plea ded guilty to two felony

offe nses and wa s sentence d to 262 mon th s o f im

p r is o n me n t. Ryan a

p p e a ls h is s e n te n c e , ar g u in g th a t a mo n g o th e r th in g s , the district court er

red in e nhancingRy an’s se n t en ce beca use he did not have the re quisite number of
c on vic tio ns to q

ua lif y fo r c are e r- of

fe nd e r s tat us. T he g ov e rn me nt a g re e s th a t r e se nte nc ingis
war rante d on these grounds. Be cause we also ag ree , we VA CA TE Ry an’s se ntence and REMAND fo r r es en t en ci n g. I. I n th e ins tant c a se , Ry an p le a de d guil ty to p os se ssi on

of c ra c k c ocain e wi th i nte nt t o dis tr ibute , in

vio latio n o f 2 1 U.S. C. § 841( a )( 1) , an d to bei nga fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi re arm , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) . I n advanc e of the d i s t rict cour t sentencingRy an, the Probation O f f i c e p r e p ar e d

a P r e s e n t e n c e R e p o rt( P S R )
. T h e P S R d e t a i l e d Ryan ’ s e x t e n s i v e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y,No. 08-6523

USA v. Ry an

- 2 - including a

2000 felony

conviction for sa le of a

controlled substanc e and what the Probation Offic e
un de rs too d to be a

20 04 fe lony

c on vic tio n f

or po sse ssi on

of a c on tr oll e d su

bs tanc e wi th i nte nt t o s e ll. Ba sed on these two c onvictions, the district court deter mined that Ry an qualifie d for a sentenc ing
e nh anc e me nt a s a

c are e r o ff

e nd e r u nd e r § 4B 1. 1, wh ic h p ro vid e s th a t [a] d e fe nd ant i s a

c are e r o ff

e nd e r i f ( 1) the de fe nd ant w a s at le a st e ig hte e n y e ars old at the time def

endant c ommitt ed the instan t offe nse of c onviction; (2) the instant offe n s e of convic tion is a felony that is either a c rime of violenc e or a controlled substance of

fense ; and (3) the def

endant ha s at least two prior f elony convictions of either a crime of violence or

a contr olled substance of fense
. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a ). At sentenc ing, Ry an did not object to the di strict court’s determination t hat he had two prior felony convictions that qualified a s “controlled- substance of fense s.” As a result, other tha n the information in the PSR , there wer e no rec ords of those convictions befor e the district c ourt. Ry an
now ar g ues that the 2004 conviction was not a “controlled-substanc e offense,” and another pane l of this court took judicial notice of the records of the 2004 conviction, making them part of the rec ord in this case. United St ates v. Cardicaus Ryan , No. 08-6523 (6th Cir. J an. 26, 2010) ( order g ranting motion to s upplement re cord a nd to take judicial notice)
.

II. “ Th is C ourt

re vie ws fo r c le ar e rr or

a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a ct wi th r e sp e c t to its application of the SentencingGuidelines; conc lusions of law, h o we ver, a re r eviewe d de novo .” United Sta te s v . W ar d , 5 0 6 F
. 3 d 4 6 8 , 4 7 2 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c it a ti o n o mi tt e d )
. “ [T ]h e g overnme nt bear s the burden of establishing the defe ndant’s status a s a car eer offe nder by a pre pondera

nce of theNo. 08-6523

USA v. Ry an

- 3 - evidenc e.” United States v. W right , 4 3 F. Ap p ’x 8 4 8 , 8 5 1 (6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Cro we ll , 997 F.2d 146, 149–50 ( 6th Cir. 1993)). No t e v e r y c r im e inv o lv in g a c o n tr o ll e d s u b s ta n c e is a “ c o n tr o ll e d

- s u

b s ta n c e o f fense ” for purp os e s o f a

c are e r- of fe nd e r e nh anc e me nt. A “ c on tr oll e d- su bs tanc e of

fe ns e ” is an off ense unde r fe dera l or state law, punisha ble by imprisonme n t fo r a te rm exceedingone y ear , that prohibits the manufac ture, im p o rt , export, dist ribution, or dispensing of

a controlled substance (or a counte rfe it substance) or the possession of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e (o r co un te rf

e it sub sta nc e ) wit h inte nt to m anu fa c tur e , im po rt , export, dist ribute, or dispense
. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)
. Acc ording to rec ords re lated to the 2004 conviction, Ry an was initially indicted by

a g rand jur y fo r f our c ounts of

po sse ssi on

of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e wi th i ntent to sel l (C ounts 1- 4) , in violation of Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-17-417, and one count of possession of a controlled substanc e (Count 5), in violation of Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39- 17-418. [Appellant A pp’x at 10–15.] The PSR’s discussion of the 2004 conviction indicate d that Ry an plea ded guilty to Count 5 but descr ibed it as “Possession of Controlled Substance with Intent to Sell: M arijuana ,” a c rime for which Ry an wa s
never indicted. [P SR, at ¶ 56.] The district c ourt, which relied on the PSR (and presumably Ry an’s la c k o f a n ob je c tio n on thi s po int ), fo un d that th is w a s a c on tr oll e d- su

bs tanc e of

fe ns e . [R. 57 , Se nt. Tr ., a t 36 ; se e als o PSR , at ¶ 63.] Our ow n e xami natio n of the re c or ds of thi s c on vic tio n e xpla ins why the PSR w a s in a c c ur a te on this point ; the rec ords contain conflicting information. On one hand, the judgme nt indicates that Ry an plea ded guilty

to Count 5 (which was po s s es s i o n of a c ontrolled substance ) and that the prosec ution dropped Counts 1-4. [Appellant App. at 19.] On t he other hand, the documents descr ibeNo. 08-6523

USA v. Ry an

- 4 - the offe nse that Ry an plea ded gui lty to as possession of a c ontrolled substance with inte nt to s e ll
. [ Id . at 17–19.] Further

more, some of

the desc riptions of the offe nse ar e bar ely leg ible, and the statute upon which Ry an wa s convicted is not included on a ny of the doc uments. The distinction is im portant bec ause if Ry an wa s convicted of simple po ssession of a controlled substanc e without intent to “manuf actur e, im port, export, dist ribute or dispense ,” he w as
no t c on vic te d o f a “ c on tr oll e d- su bs tanc e of

fe ns e ” that wo uld qu a lif

y him fo r c are e r- of

fe nd e r s tatus
. United States v. Montane

z , 44 2 F .3 d 4 85 , 4 88 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; se e als o U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) . Such
an err or would re quire us to vac ate Ry an’s se ntence and re mand the ca se for rese n t en ci n g. Montanez , 442 F.3d at 494. Ry an takes this posit ion. For its par t, the g overnme nt ag ree s with Ry an and conc edes that it appea rs that Ry an wa s not convicted of a controlled-substanc e off

ense in 2004. We need not g o s o f

ar a s to s ay th a t R y anw a s n o t c o n v ic te d

o f a c o n tr o ll e d

- s u

b s tance
o f f e n s e . In s t e a d , i t s u f

f i c e s t o s ay t h a t b a s e d o n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , w e c an n o t s ay b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that Ry an’s 2004 conviction was for a contr olled-substance offe nse. Withon ly

on e re ma ini ngpr e dic a te c on vic tio n, Ry an d oe s n ot q ua lif y fo r c are e r- of

fe nd e r s tatus
. Acc ording ly , we VA CA TE Ry an’s sentence and REMAND t o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo r r es en t en ci n g. Be cause we hold that the district cour t must rese ntence Ry an, we decline to r eac h the merits of the other a lleg ed sente ncing err ors.