In United States v. Dupree, No. 19-13776 (Jan. 18, 2023), the en banc Court held that the definition of “controlled substance offense” in U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(b) does not include inchoate offenses like conspiracy.
In an opinion by Jill Pryor, and joined by Chief Judge Bill Pryor and Judges Wilson, Jordan, Rosenbaum, Newsom, Lagoa, and Brasher, the Court held that the definition in the text of 4B1.2(b) unambiguously excludes inchoate offenses. Because there was no ambiguity, the Court was precluded from deferring to the commentary’s broader definition (expressly including inchoate offenses) under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kisor clarifying its earlier decision Stinson.
Chief Judge Pryor concurred in order to correct the common misconception. The Guidelines’ commentary typically goes through the same notice-and-comment and congressional review process as amendments to the text of the Guidelines themselves. He encouraged the Commission to move what normally goes in the commentary into the text of the Guidelines.
Judge Grant concurred in the judgment, agreeing with the result but criticizing the majority for effectively overruling Stinson, which she viewed as distinct from the administration law cases upon which it relied. She feared that the majority’s opinion may “unsettled much of our case law” because courts must now examine whether the text of the Guidelines is ambiguous before consulting the commentary.
Judge Luck, joined by Judge Branch, dissented. He opined that the majority’s application of Kisor to Stinson effectively overruled Stinson, and Kisor did not apply to Stinson at all.