Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mantrel Deshun YOUNG, originally named as Montrell Deshun Young Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-03
Citations: 699 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 16-3669
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mantrel Deshun YOUNG, originally named as Montrell Deshun Young Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mantrel Deshun YOUNG, originally named as Montrell Deshun Young Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-3669
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: October 5, 2017
Filed: November 3, 2017
Anne E. Gardner, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jeffrey M. Rosenzweig, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant
Mantrel Deshun Young, Pro Se
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Mantrel Young challenges the 120 month sentence the district court imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B),. 846. In particular, Young argues his 2004 conviction for using a communication device to facilitate a drug transaction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) does not qualify as a "controlled substance offense" for purposes of the career offender enhancement, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b).
Not all § 843(b) offenses qualify as "controlled substance offenses," see United States v. Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d 798, 805 (5th Cir. 2009). A § 843(b) offense is a "controlled substance offense" "if the offense of conviction established that the underlying offense (the offense committed, caused, or facilitated) was a controlled substance offense," U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.l (2016) (quotation omitted). We conclude that it was not plain error when the district court determined that Young's 2004 conviction did so qualify, particularly because Young's attorney only generally objected to that determination and conceded that his offense did qualify under current case law. See U.S. v. Grimes, 702 F.3d 460, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2012) (applying plain error review); Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d at 800-01 (reviewing for plain error because defendant did not specifically argue at sentencing that government failed to produce sufficient evidence that prior § 843(b) conviction constituted drug trafficking offense).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable J, Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.