United States v. Charles Evans
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles EVANS, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
FARRIS, Circuit Judge:
Evans contends that his conviction is not a controlled substance offense because it involved the delivery of chalk rather than cocaine. Prior circuit authority has considered and answered the precise questions raised by his appeal.
There is no dispute that Evans pleaded guilty to an offense covered by the controlled substance statute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846.
Under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a)(2), we look only to the elements of the crime of conviction and not the conduct underlying the crime.
United States v. Lipsey, 40 F.3d 1200, 1201 (11th Cir.1994);
See also United States v. Frazier, 89 F.3d 1501 (11th Cir.1996). A conviction for attempt required proof only that Evans possessed the mens rea required for the underlying-crime and took a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.
United States v. Carothers, 121 F.3d 659, 661 (11th Cir.1997).
A defendant is a “career offender” if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
These requirements were met here.
AFFIRMED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(finding that attempt to distribute cocaine under §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) qualifies as a “controlled substance offense”)
-
(holding prior conviction involving delivery of chalk, rather than cocaine, a "con- trolled substance offense")
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.