United States v. Babcock

Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
PUBLISH Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 21, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 20-4003
ZACHARY ROBERT BABCOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Utah
(D.C. Nos. 2:18-CV-00819-TS & 2:17-CR-00124-TS-1)
_________________________________
Benjamin C. McMurray, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Scott Keith Wilson, Federal
Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Defendant-
Appellant.
Elizabethanne Stevens, Assistant United States Attorney (John W. Huber, United States
Attorney, and Ryan D. Tenney, Assistant United States Attorney, with her on the briefs),
Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Plaintiff-Appellee.
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
_________________________________
Defendant Zachary Babcock appeals the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to vacate and correct his sentence on the ground of ineffective assistance of
counsel. He complains that his counsel failed to object to a sentencing-guidelines
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 2
enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on prior convictions of a
“controlled substance offense” as defined by USSG § 4B1.2(b). The convictions were
under a Utah statute that prohibits offers to sell controlled substances. This court has
held that statutes of two States that prohibit a mere offer to sell a controlled
substance—without requiring proof of intent to actually distribute or complete a
sale—do not satisfy the definition of controlled substance offense. See United States
v. Madkins, 866 F.3d 1136, 1145 (10th Cir. 2017) (Kansas statute); United States v.
McKibbon, 878 F.3d 967, 973–74 (10th Cir. 2017) (Colorado statute). But guideline
commentary states that an attempt to commit a controlled-substance offense is itself a
controlled-substance offense, see USSG § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1, and our opinions have left
open the possibility that an offer-to-sell statute could satisfy the conditions necessary
to be considered an attempt-to-sell statute.
Defendant contends that his trial counsel should have argued at sentencing (1)
that an offer to sell under the Utah statute is not necessarily an attempt to commit a
controlled-substance offense and (2) that the guideline commentary stating that an
attempt to commit a controlled-substance offense is also a controlled-substance
offense improperly expanded the text of the guideline. Exercising jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), we affirm the judgment below. Counsel’s failure to
make those two arguments did not constitute deficient performance because the first
argument lacks merit and the second would have been a stretch at the time.
2
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 3
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In July 2017 he pleaded guilty to the firearm
charge in the United States District Court for the District of Utah in exchange for
dismissal of the drug charge. He also waived his right to appeal or collaterally
challenge his sentence, except on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Defendant’s presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated Defendant’s
base offense level as 20 by applying a guideline that provides an increased offense
level for those who have previously been convicted of a felony “controlled substance
offense.” USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). After an additional enhancement and two
reductions, Defendant’s total offense level was 21, producing a guideline range of
70–87 months’ incarceration, and Defendant was sentenced to 70 months in prison
and three years supervised release on October 3, 2017.
The guidelines define controlled-substance offense to mean:
an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, export,
distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit
substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit
substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or
dispense.
USSG § 4B1.2(b). An accompanying application note states that the term controlled
substance offense “include[s] the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and
attempting to commit such [an] offense[].” USSG § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (emphasis added).
3
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 4
To determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a controlled-substance
offense, we apply what is called the categorical approach, which requires us to “line
up the elements of the prior conviction alongside the elements of the [guidelines]
predicate offense” to make sure that the guidelines definition of the predicate offense
does not have any elements absent from the offense of the prior conviction. Madkins,
866 F.3d at 1145 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). That is, a prior
conviction under a statute “will qualify as a controlled substance offense only if [the
violated statute] criminalizes no more conduct than the offenses listed in the
Guidelines.” United States v. Faulkner, 950 F.3d 670, 674 (10th Cir. 2019).1 Our
analysis focuses on “the elements of the statute of conviction and not on the
particular facts underlying that conviction.” Id. (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Defendant’s prior convictions were under Utah Code § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii),
which makes it unlawful to “knowingly and intentionally . . . distribute a controlled
or counterfeit substance, or to agree, consent, offer, or arrange to distribute a
controlled or counterfeit substance.” (emphasis added). The government has argued
that the state statute requires all the elements of an attempt to commit a controlled-
substance offense, so the enhancement under the guidelines was proper.
1
Madkins and Faulkner predated Shular v. United States, 140 S.Ct. 779(2020), which appears to employ a different approach in determining whether a state
offense is a controlled-substances offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18
U.S.C § 924(e). But we do not consider Shular here because neither party argued the
point and we doubt that our ultimate conclusions would be affected.
4
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 5
Defendant, however, argues that the government’s argument fails on two
counts. First, he argues that for the state offense to constitute an attempt to commit a
controlled-substance offense, the offender must make a bona fide offer to distribute a
controlled substance, and, in his view, the Utah statute does not require that the offer
be bona fide, so the state offense cannot be a predicate offense for application of the
guidelines enhancement. Second, Defendant argues that even if the Utah offense is
equivalent to an attempt to commit a controlled-substance offense, the Sentencing
Commission lacked authority to use its commentary to expand the guidelines
definition to include attempts. Defendant raised neither of these arguments until he
filed his § 2255 motion.
The district court rejected both of Defendant’s arguments and denied a
certificate of appealability (COA) to allow Defendant to appeal to this court. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA to appeal denial of motion under § 2255). We
then granted a COA on these two issues.2 Our task is to determine whether counsel’s
failure to raise these arguments at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance of
counsel.3
2
We also granted a COA on Defendant’s argument that the Utah law at issue
here did not categorically qualify as a controlled-substance offense because it applied
to substances not controlled under federal law. Defendant concedes that this
argument has since been resolved to the contrary in United States v. Jones, 15 F.4th
1288, 1290 (10th Cir. 2021), which held that the guidelines do not limit controlled
substances to only those substances so defined under federal law.
3
Although Defendant has already served his prison sentence, this case is not
moot because he is still on supervised release. If we were to hold that his sentence
was unlawful, the district court would need to resentence him, and the term of
supervised release could be modified in his favor. See United States v. Salazar, 987
5
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 6
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
In a § 2255 appeal, “[w]e review the district court’s legal rulings . . . de novo
and its findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Holloway, 939 F.3d 1088,
1097 (10th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because there are no
disputed historical facts, our review is de novo. Cf. id. (reviewing claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel de novo).
F.3d 1248, 1252 (10th Cir. 2021) (holding that appeal of sentence was not moot
because “the mere possibility of a reduced term of supervised release is enough to
maintain a live controversy”). As stated recently by the Supreme Court, “[W]e may
dismiss the case [as moot] only if it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual
relief whatever to [the party seeking relief] assuming it prevails.” Mission Product
Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652, 1660 (2019) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The mootness issue would be different if the challenge were to the
execution of his prison sentence (say, he complained that his release date was
miscalculated) in a habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and he had already
been released from confinement, even if he was still on supervised release, where we
could not order any relief because we lacked authority to reduce the term of
supervised release as “compensation” for serving an excessive time in prison. See
Rhodes v. Judiscak, 676 F.3d 931, 932 (10th Cir. 2012). (Because Rhodes is
distinguishable from this case—where we clearly have authority to require
resentencing—we need not consider its continuing viability. But we note that the two
circuit-court opinions relied on by Rhodes have since been rejected by later decisions
of the same courts. See United States v. Epps, 707 F.3d 337, 344–46 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
(rejecting United States v. Bundy, 391 Fed. Appx. 886 (D.C. Cir. 2010)); United
States v. Scripps, 961 F.3d 626, 631 n.3 (3d Cir. 2020) (distinguishing Burkey v.
Marbury, 556 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009), and stating that its mootness logic “appears to
have been superseded by more recent Supreme Court case law, which clarifies that a
case is not moot if there is any theoretical avenue of relief. See, e.g., [Mission
Product].”).)
6
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 7
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
To establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, one must show both
deficient performance and resultant prejudice to the defendant. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We may reject a claim under either prong
without reviewing the other. See id. at 697.
Deficient performance is representation that falls “below an objective standard
of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. We start with the presumption that “absent a showing
to the contrary, . . . an attorney’s conduct is objectively reasonable because it could
be considered part of a legitimate trial strategy.” Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036,
1047 (10th Cir. 2002). But even when, as was apparently true here,4 “an attorney’s
ignorance of relevant law and facts precludes a court from characterizing certain
actions as strategic . . . , the pertinent question under the first prong of Strickland
remains whether, after considering all the circumstances of the case, the attorney’s
representation was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 1050–51.
“[C]ounsel’s failure to raise or recognize a potential legal argument does not
automatically render counsel’s performance constitutionally deficient.” United States
v. Harms, 371 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 2004). Rather, we must ask whether “the
identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent
assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. In answering this question we must
recognize that life is short. Realistically, counsel do not have the time, and therefore
4
In the § 2255 proceeding in district court, trial counsel for Defendant
conceded that he had not thought to challenge the enhancement.
7
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 8
are not required, to do everything possible to help their clients. They are not
ineffective because they fail to conceive, research, and raise every novel argument
that has a chance to prevail. See New v. United States, 652 F.3d 949, 952 (8th Cir.
2011) (failure to raise argument that a warrantless entry into defendant’s hospital
room was a search violating the Fourth Amendment did not constitute deficient
performance where there was a split of authority among state courts and the Eighth
Circuit had not yet addressed the issue). In particular, if an argument is meritless, it is
likely that the failure to raise it was not deficient performance. But in any event, the
lack of merit establishes that the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to argue
the point, thereby defeating the ineffective-assistance claim. See, e.g., United States
v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 797 (10th Cir. 2006) (assuming counsel’s performance was
deficient but holding that ineffective-assistance claim failed because defendant was
not prejudiced by omission of argument that “would have failed on the merits”).
Because the merit of the ineffectiveness claim depends on the merits of the
arguments not made by trial counsel, we next address the merits of those arguments.
We begin by discussing when an offer to distribute constitutes an attempt to
distribute. We then turn to the Utah statute and conclude that an offer to distribute
under the statute satisfies the requirements for an attempt. After that, we consider
whether the guidelines commentary improperly defined a controlled-substance
offense to include an attempt to commit a controlled-substance offense. Although
there is now some caselaw support for that proposition, we conclude that failure to
raise the issue was not deficient performance at the time of Defendant’s sentencing.
8
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 9
C. When Is an Offer to Distribute an Attempt to Distribute?
In two recent cases this court held that statutes proscribing offers to sell did
not meet the guidelines definition of a controlled-substance offense because the
government had not shown that the statutes required an intent to sell a controlled
substance. In Madkins (decided two months before Defendant was sentenced), the
court considered a Kansas statute that made it unlawful “to sell, offer for sale or have
in . . . [one’s] possession with intent to sell, deliver, or distribute” a controlled
substance. 866 F.3d at 1145 (quoting Kan. Stat. § 65-4161(a) (2001) and § 65-
4163(a)(3) (2001)).
We considered whether an offer to sell under the Kansas statute would satisfy
the guideline because, under the guideline commentary, an attempt to sell is treated
as a controlled-substance offense and an offer to sell could be an attempt to sell. We
rejected that possibility because an attempt to commit a crime requires an intent to
commit the crime; and such intent was not required to prove an offer to sell under the
Kansas statute. See Madkins, 866 F.3d at 1147–48. Therefore, the Kansas statute was
broader than the guidelines definition of sell or attempt to sell. See id. We quote at
length our explanation for that conclusion:
In reaching our holding today, we note that at first glance, it seems
as though an offer for sale would fit squarely within the definition in the
Guidelines, since the commentary to § 4B1.2 clarifies that a controlled
substance offense includes an attempt to commit such an offense. But a
closer look reveals that the two are not a categorical match. We have
previously explained that in our circuit, “an attempt to commit a crime
requires the intent to commit the crime and overt acts in furtherance of that
intent.” See United States v. Taylor, 413 F.3d 1146, 1155 (10th Cir. 2005)
(emphasis added). And because a person can offer a controlled substance
9
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 10
for sale without having the intent to actually complete the sale, a conviction
for an offer to sell can be broader than a conviction for an attempt to sell.
For example, as several other circuits have noted, “[a]n offer to sell
can be fraudulent, such as when one offers to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. In
such a circumstance, the offer to sell is fraudulent in the sense that the
person offering the bridge or the drug does not have the intent to distribute
or sell the item.” [United States v.] Savage, 542 F.3d [959,] 965 [2d Cir.
2008] (citing United States v. Palacios-Quinonez, 431 F.3d 471, 476 (5th
Cir. 2005))[5]. . . .
Since [an offer] does not necessarily involve the intent to sell or
distribute that is required for [an attempt], a conviction for possession with
intent to sell a controlled substance—where sale is defined to include an
offer—is broader than the conduct criminalized in § 4B1.2(a) and the
authoritative commentary.
Id.
The one out-of-circuit opinion we cited in support of our intent analysis—
Savage—likewise focused on only the element of intent in holding that an offer to
sell under a Connecticut statute did not constitute an attempt to commit a controlled-
substance offense. That court concluded as follows its analysis of why conviction
under the Connecticut statute would not satisfy the guideline:
An offer to sell can be fraudulent, such as when one offers to sell the
Brooklyn Bridge. In such a circumstance, the offer to sell is fraudulent in
the sense that the person offering the bridge or the drug does not have the
intent to distribute or sell the item. As we have held, a crime not involving
the mental culpability to commit a substantive narcotics offense does not
serve as a predicate controlled substance offense under the Guidelines.
Thus, the Connecticut statute, by criminalizing a mere offer to sell,
criminalizes more conduct than falls within the federal definition of a
controlled substance offense.
5
Palacios-Quinonez provided the Brooklyn Bridge example, but only to
distinguish an offer to sell drugs from a purchase for sale (the state offense at issue in
the case) in that an offer to sell does not require the offeror to possess drugs. The
court concluded that the offense of purchase of a drug for sale satisfies the elements
of possession with intent to distribute (attempt was not at issue). See 431 F.3d at 476.
10
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 11
Savage, 542 F.3d at 965–66 (citations, brackets, and internal quotation marks
omitted).
This circuit’s next opinion on the subject, United States v. McKibbon, 878
F.3d 967 (10th Cir. 2017) (decided two months after Defendant was sentenced),
adopted the same reasoning as in Madkins, quoting the same passage from that
opinion that we quoted above. It considered a Colorado drug law that defined
prohibited sales to include “a barter, an exchange, or a gift, or an offer therefor.” 878
F.3d at 972 (quoting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-403(1)). Neither the plain text of the
Colorado statute, nor cases interpreting it, had limited or modified the term offer to
include an intent requirement. See id. at 974. A conviction under the Colorado statute
thus did not qualify as a controlled-substance offense under the guideline. We do not
read McKibbon as altering the analysis in Madkins. As we later summarized the
holdings in Madkins and McKibbon, “[B]ecause a fraudulent offer lacks the intent to
sell or distribute that an attempt requires, a conviction for selling or distributing a
controlled substance (in any state that defines sale to include all offers) criminalizes a
broader swath of conduct than the guidelines’ definition of a controlled substance
offense.” United States v. Almanza-Vigil, 912 F.3d 1310, 1320 (10th Cir. 2019)
(emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted). In sum, as we understand
Madkins and McKibbon, we will not hold that a state offer-to-sell offense is a
controlled-substance offense under the guidelines unless case law or unambiguous
statutory language requires as an element of the offense an intent to sell a controlled
substance.
11
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 12
Defendant asserts, however, that McKibbon required more than an intent
element. He argues that we insisted that the offer to sell be a bona fide offer to sell,
and that an offer is bona fide only if the offeror has the ability to consummate the
sale. As he puts it, “[T]his court has explained that a bona fide offer to sell is one in
which the ‘defendant had both the intent and ability to proceed with the sale.’” Aplt.
Br. at 14 (quoting McKibbon, 878 F.3d at 973) (emphasis in Defendant’s brief).
Defendant is correct that McKibbon states that the offer to sell must be bona fide. But
we have no doubt that the panel in McKibbon was using the term as it is defined in
Black’s Law Dictionary 217 (11th ed. 2019): “1. Made in good faith; without fraud or
deceit. 2. Sincere; genuine.” An offer to sell is bona fide if the offeror intends to sell
the product or service offered. The context of our use of the term bona fide further
supports our interpretation. We used the term in response to the government’s
argument that the Colorado Supreme Court had never addressed a conviction for an
offer to sell that was not a bona fide offer and that the state’s highest court would
probably require proof of a bona fide offer to sell if the issue ever arose. See
McKibbon, 878 F.3d at 973–74. In making that argument, the government’s brief in
McKibbon stated: “[T]he Colorado Supreme Court would likely interpret the term
‘offer’ to mean a bona-fide offer—i.e., one made with the intent to sell drugs.”
McKibbon (16-1493) Aplee. Br. at 13. It would be most unusual and surprising if we
had rejected the government’s “bona fide” argument, using the same term (bona fide)
as that argument, and yet were giving that term an idiosyncratic meaning (a meaning
12
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 13
different from the dictionary meaning and the meaning provided in the government
brief) without explicitly saying so.
The definition of bona fide relied on by Defendant appears in McKibbon solely
in a parenthetical in which the First Circuit quotes a decision of a New York state
court. The surrounding paragraph of McKibbon addresses whether we should assume,
in the absence of any state-court decisions on the matter, that a statutory prohibition
on offers to sell applies only to offers made with the intent to sell. We wrote:
The Government argues that there is no Colorado Supreme Court
case expressly addressing a conviction under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-
405(1)(a) for a fraudulent or non-bona fide offer to sell controlled
substances. But that was true, as well, of the Kansas law addressed in
Madkins, yet this Court interpreted an “offer” for sale under Kansas law to
include fraudulent offers made without the intent required in § 4B1.2(b),
even in the absence of a state case recognizing such a conviction. See 866
F.3d at 1147-48; see also United States v. Bryant, 571 F.3d 147, 156-58
(1st Cir. 2009) (holding New York offense of offering to sell a controlled
substance fell within U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) because “it is well-established
under New York law that in order to support a conviction under an offering
for sale theory, there must be evidence of a bona fide offer to sell—i.e., that
defendant had both the intent and ability to proceed with the sale”
(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v.
Savage, 542 F.3d 959, 965-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (interpreting Connecticut
statute criminalizing offers to include fraudulent offers without citing
supporting state case).
McKibbon, 878 F.3d at 973.
The citation to Bryant was to show that it is not an impossible burden to insist
that the government provide a state-court decision imposing an intent requirement on
a prohibition of offers to sell. In Bryant the defendant argued that his conviction
under a New York drug statute that prohibited offers to sell was not a controlled-
substance offense. He relied on the proposition in Savage that an offer to sell made
13
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 14
without the intent to distribute or sell the drug would not be a controlled-substance
offense under the guidelines. See Bryant, 571 F.3d at 157. The First Circuit rejected
the argument because the New York statute in fact required such intent. It wrote: “[I]t
is well-established under New York law that ‘in order to support a conviction under
an offering for sale theory, there must be evidence of a bona fide offer to sell—i.e.,
that defendant had both the intent and ability to proceed with the sale.’” Id. at 158(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, it concluded, “At the time Bryant was
allegedly convicted of the offense, he would have been found to have intent to
proceed with a sale.” Id.Bryant was not adopting the definition of bona fide offer used by the New
York courts. All that mattered for the First Circuit’s purposes was that New York law
explicitly required an intent to sell. Defendant would have us believe that by
including quoted language in a parenthetical that was broader than necessary to make
the quoting court’s point (McKibbon did not underline the “ability to proceed with
the sale” language, but rather underlined the phrase “it is well-established under New
York law”—to show that some States do clearly require intent) this court in
McKibbon adopted a meaning of bona fide that is a significant departure from
common usage. We reject the proposition as fanciful.
To be sure, attempt requires more than intent. McKibbon quoted Madkins for
the proposition that “an attempt to commit a crime requires the intent to commit the
crime and overt acts in furtherance of that intent.” McKibbon, 878 F.3d at 973
(internal quotation marks omitted). Before assessing whether the Utah offer-to-sell
14
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 15
statute is an attempt statute, we should therefore add a few words about the overt-act
requirement.
In the attempt context we have said that whether conduct qualifies as an overt
act (or, using the more common terminology, qualifies as a substantial step toward
committing the offense6) “necessarily depends on the facts of each case.” United
States v. Ramirez, 348 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
omitted). In assessing whether conduct constitutes a substantial step, we must keep in
focus that “[t]he primary purpose in punishing attempts is . . . to subject to corrective
action those individuals who have sufficiently manifested their dangerousness.” 2
Wayne LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 11.2, at 285 (3d ed. 2018).
One could reasonably take the position that an offer to sell is always a
satisfactory overt act or substantial step. This court has certainly suggested as much.
See Almanza-Vigil, 912 F.3d at 1320 (in the attempt context, referring to an offer as
an overt act); see also United States v. Evans, 699 F.3d 858, 868 (6th Cir. 2012),
6
When it said that attempt requires intent and overt acts, Madkins was
quoting Taylor, 413 F.3d at 1155, which said, “In our circuit, a conspiracy or an
attempt to commit a crime requires the intent to commit the crime and overt acts in
furtherance of that intent.” The use of the term overt act fit neatly in a sentence also
addressing the crime of conspiracy, which traditionally requires an overt act. But the
authority that Taylor cited, United States v. Haynes, 372 F.3d 1164, 1167 (10th Cir.
2004), which addressed attempt but not conspiracy, spoke in terms of substantial
steps, without any reference to overt acts. Indeed, the necessary actus reus for
attempt “has been described as an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward
completing the offense.” See United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1197 n.14 (10th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). For attempt crimes our caselaw refers
to this simply as a substantial step requirement. See id. at 1198 n.14 (noting that an
added benefit of this nomenclature is clearly distinguishing between attempt and
conspiracy, where the overt act need not be substantial).
15
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 16
abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019)
(“An offer to sell a controlled substance is an act perpetrated in furtherance of a sale,
typically as part of the negotiation for the price and quantity, and it is therefore a
substantial step in attempting to consummate a sale.”).
But even if an offer to sell might in some circumstances not suffice as a
substantial step, we think that situation sufficiently unlikely that it is appropriate to
place the burden on the defendant to show that a conviction could be had under the
state offer-to-sell statute in circumstances in which the offer was not a substantial
step. Under the categorical approach, “to find that a state statute creates a crime
outside the generic definition of a listed crime in a federal statute requires more than
the application of legal imagination to a state statute’s language. It requires a realistic
probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to
conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime.” Gonzales v. Duenas-
Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007); accord Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 191
(2013). The defendant “must at least point to his own case or other cases in which the
state courts in fact did apply the statute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which
he argues.” Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. at 193; see, e.g., United States v. Mendez, 924
F.3d 1122, 1125–26 (10th Cir. 2019) (requiring examples of prosecution under
defendant’s expansive reading of state statute where neither statute on its face nor
caselaw interpreting it supported defendant’s interpretation); cf. United States v.
Titties, 852 F.3d 1257, 1274 (10th Cir. 2017) (not requiring examples of actual
prosecution under defendant’s theory where plain text of the statute reached beyond
16
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 17
the generic definition of a violent felony). We now turn to whether the Utah offer-to-
sell provision is a controlled-substance offense.
D. The Utah Statute
Utah Code § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii) makes it unlawful to “knowingly and
intentionally . . . distribute a controlled or counterfeit substance, or to agree, consent,
offer, or arrange to distribute a controlled or counterfeit substance.” In light of the
interpretation of this statute by the Utah courts, we reject Defendant’s arguments that
it does not state a controlled-substance offense. In particular, we hold that a violation
of the offer-to-sell provision is an attempt to sell.
To begin with, in a brief opinion addressing whether § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii) was
unconstitutionally vague, the Utah Supreme Court held that the statute makes clear
that the “outer perimeters” of proscribed conduct requires knowledge or intent that
distribution occur:
The statute in question . . . specif[ies] that any activity leading to or
resulting in the distribution for value of a controlled substance must be
engaged in knowingly or with intent that such distribution would, or would
be likely to, occur. Thus, any witting or intentional lending of aid in the
distribution of drugs, whatever form it takes, is proscribed by the act.
State v. Harrison, 601 P.2d 922, 923 (Utah 1979).
The Utah Court of Appeals later elaborated on the matter. In State v. Hester an
undercover officer drove up to a curb where the defendant was standing and asked if
he had any heroin, to which the defendant replied, “only coke.” 3 P.3d 725, 727
(Utah Ct. App. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Clark, 20 P.3d 300(Utah Ct. App. 2001). The officer said that she wanted heroin but “if he had any
17
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 18
cocaine she had a twenty”; the defendant took her $20 bill, told her to wait, and was
then arrested as he was walking away from the undercover officer. Id. The defendant
was charged with “unlawful distribution, offering, agreeing, consenting or arranging
to distribute a controlled or counterfeit substance” under § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii). Id. at
728. The trial court dismissed the charge because the government failed to present
evidence from which a fact finder could reasonably infer intent to distribute. See id.
at 727. The court of appeals agreed. See id.
According to the court of appeals, “To make out a prima facie case under the
statute, the State must show that an offer, agreement, consent, or arrangement to
distribute controlled substances was made by the defendant and, whichever variation
or variations it charges, that the behavior was engaged in knowingly or with intent
that such distribution would, or would be likely to, occur.” Id. at 728 (internal
quotation marks omitted).7 It further held that “[a] defendant who offers to sell drugs
with no actual intent of following through is not guilty of the offense of arranging.”
Id. at 729. There, despite the defendant’s verbal offer and receipt of a $20 bill, the
7
The Utah Court of Appeals broadly refers to this statute as the “arranging
statute.” Hester, 3 P.3d at 729. As indicated in the above quotation, the court does
not distinguish between the various means of violating the law (i.e., offering,
agreeing, consenting, or arranging to distribute). Thus, we are unpersuaded by an
argument in Defendant’s briefs that the statute is broader than the guidelines
definition of controlled-substance offense because it reaches mere agreement or
consent to distribute. Hester made clear that its interpretation of the statute applied to
“whichever variation or variations” were charged under the statute. 3 P.3d at 728. As
the district court concluded, “[A]ll of the alternative means set out in the statute
require both an intent to distribute and an act taken in furtherance of that intent,
bringing them into the definition of an attempt.” R., Vol. II at 127.
18
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 19
court held that there was insufficient evidence to show that “the defendant acted with
the knowledge or intent that his actions would result in the distribution of a
controlled substance.” Id.The State could have shown intent, according to the court, “by producing
evidence of a completed sale of cocaine to [the officer] or evidence that [defendant]
took active steps to facilitate the distribution of cocaine, even if the distribution never
actually occurred.” Id. The court provided examples of active steps, with
accompanying illustrative cases, including “ma[king] phone calls seeking drugs;
dr[iving] around looking for drugs; comment[ing] to [the officer] on how the drugs
were to be acquired; [being] seen conferring with known drug suppliers; or [being]
shown to be a link in a chain of distribution.” Id. at 729 n.6 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). By contrast, in Hester the defendant did not have cocaine
on him at the time, nor had he spoken to anyone after leaving the officer, and there
was no indication he would “meet a supplier or otherwise actually procure cocaine or
arrange for its delivery to [the officer].” Id. at 727.
We easily conclude that the Utah statute requires an intent to commit a
controlled-substance offense.8 In addition, we see little difference between the
8
In 2007 the Fifth Circuit ruled in a brief per curiam unpublished opinion that
by including mere offers to sell, the Utah law at issue here was broader than the
guidelines definition of drug trafficking offense under USSG § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iv)
(2006), which defined such offenses to include those that “prohibit[] the
manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance . . .
or the possession of a controlled substance . . . with intent to [do any of the
aforementioned].” See United States v. Duque-Hernandez, 227 F. App’x 326, 328
(5th Cir. 2007). The Commission thereafter amended the commentary to § 2L1.2 to
19
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 20
requirement in Hester of substantial evidence of intent and the traditional
requirement in attempt law that there be proof of a substantial step in furtherance of
the offense. In other words, Utah effectively requires an overt act in support of an
offer to sell. It is perhaps conceivable that Utah courts might interpret the statute to
permit a conviction of one who is not guilty of an attempt to commit a controlled-
substance offense. But as previously stated, under the categorical approach,
“find[ing] that a state statute creates a crime outside the generic definition of a listed
crime in a federal statute requires . . . a realistic probability, not a theoretical
possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the
generic definition of a crime.” Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. at 193. Defendant has not
satisfied his burden of showing such a possibility, and the Utah Court of Appeals
decision in Hester would seem to foreclose it.9
We recognize that this court has held that failure to raise a “clearly meritorious
[objection] under the existing [sentencing] guidelines and elementary burden-of-
proof principles” constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v.
Glover, 97 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir. 1995). But there is nothing clearly meritorious
explicitly include offers to sell in the definition. Defendant argues that “[b]y
amending § 2L1.2 and not § 4B1.2, the Sentencing Commission has indicated a clear
intent that §4B1.2 does not extend to offers to sell.” Aplt. Br. at 13. We are not
persuaded. A critical distinction between the two provisions is that the commentary
to § 4B1.2 already included attempt crimes whereas the prior definition of drug-
trafficking offenses in the § 2L1.2 commentary specified only completed offenses.
9
We further note that insofar as Defendant is complaining about the failure of
his attorney to argue that the Utah statute does not require something more than
intent, such as an overt act, he is largely relying on language in our McKibbon
opinion, which was not rendered until after Defendant’s sentencing.
20
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 21
about this challenge to Defendant’s enhancement. We therefore cannot say that it was
objectively unreasonable for counsel to fail to argue that Defendant’s Utah
conviction did not qualify as a controlled-substance offense.
E. Authority of Guideline Commentary
Defendant argues that his counsel should have objected to the enhancement on
the ground that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority when, rather than
amending the § 4B1.2(b) guideline text, it used commentary to expand the definition
of a controlled-substance offense to include attempt crimes.
The guidelines contain three types of content: (1) guideline provisions, (2)
“policy statements regarding application of the guidelines,” and (3) commentary,
which “may interpret a guideline or explain how it is to be applied, suggest
circumstances which may warrant departure from the guidelines, or provide
background information.” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 41 (1993) (ellipses,
brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 46 (one way to incorporate
revisions to the guidelines is via “commentary, if the guideline which the
commentary interprets will bear the construction”). Stinson held that “commentary in
the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it
violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly
erroneous reading of, that guideline.” Id. at 38. This limitation ensures that the
Sentencing Commission does not impermissibly circumvent the requirements that it
comply with the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
in issuing guidelines, see 28 U.S.C. § 994(x), and that Congress be given notice to
21
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 22
enable it to revoke or amend proposed guidelines, see id. § 994(p). See Mistretta v.
United States, 488 U.S. 361, 393–94 (1989).10
As we noted above, § 4B1.2(b) of the guidelines defines controlled substance
offense as one “that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or
dispensing of a controlled substance . . . or the possession of a controlled substance .
. . with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.” An application
note to § 4B1.2 further states that a controlled-substance offense “include[s] the
offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting to commit such [an]
offense[].” USSG § 4B1.2(b) cmt. n.1. Defendant argues that this note is inconsistent
with § 4B1.2 because the guideline text itself already provides “a clear, specific
definition” of a controlled-substance offense which “omits any reference to attempts
or offers to sell, despite the Commission’s authority to amend the guideline to
include offers to sell if that was warranted.” Aplt. Br. at 25.
The circuit courts are divided on the legitimacy of this application note, with a
slight majority finding the guideline text and application note consistent with one
another. See, e.g., United States v. Lewis, 963 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2020), cert.
denied, 141 S. Ct. 2826, 210 L. Ed. 2d 945 (2021) (commentary and guideline are
10
Under the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, “The
Commission may promulgate commentary and policy statements, and amendments
thereto, without regard to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 994(x). Nevertheless, the
Commission will endeavor to provide, to the extent practicable, comparable
opportunities for public input on proposed policy statements and commentary
considered in conjunction with guideline amendments.” USSC, Rule of Practice and
Procedure 4.3.
22
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 23
consistent); United States v. Richardson, 958 F.3d 151, 154–55 (2d Cir. 2020), cert.
denied, 141 S. Ct. 423 (2020) (same); United States v. Smith, 989 F.3d 575, 585 (7th
Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 488 (2021) (same); United States v. Vea-Gonzales, 999
F.2d 1326, 1330 (9th Cir. 1993) (same), overruled on other grounds by Custis v.
United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994); United States v. Smith, 54 F.3d 690, 693 (11th
Cir. 1995) (same). But see United States v. Nasir, 982 F.3d 144, 159 (3d Cir. 2020)
(en banc) (the commentary is inconsistent with § 4B1.2(b) because the guideline does
not enumerate inchoate offenses), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 275 (2021), and cert.
granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 142 S. Ct. 56 (2021); United States v.
Campbell, 22 F.4th 438, 444 (4th Cir. 2022) (same); United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d
382, 386–87 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc); United States v. Winstead, 890 F.3d 1082,
1091–92 (D.C. Cir. 2018).11
Given the prominence of the issue and this split of authority, one might say
that it would be deficient performance of counsel to fail to raise the issue, at least in a
circuit which had not already resolved the matter. But there was no split of authority
11
After the D.C. Circuit decided Winstead (the first case to find the guideline
text and commentary inconsistent), the Sentencing Commission proposed an
amendment to the guideline text to explicitly include inchoate offenses. Although the
Commission stated that its commentary was authoritative under Stinson, it proposed
moving inchoate offenses “to the guideline itself as a new subsection (c) to alleviate
any confusion and uncertainty resulting from the D.C. Circuit’s decision.” USSC
Notice of Proposed Amendments, 83 Fed. Reg. 65400-01, 65413 (Dec. 20, 2018). The
Sentencing Commission has not had a quorum to promulgate amendments since then.
See Guerrant v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 640, 641 (2022) (statement of Sotomayor,
J., joined by Barrett, J.) (“[T]he Sentencing Commission has not had a quorum for
three full years.”).
23
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 24
when Defendant was sentenced on October 2, 2017. No circuit had held that the
commentary and the guideline were inconsistent. More important, in United States v.
Chavez, 660 F.3d 1215, 1228 (10th Cir. 2011), this court had rejected a challenge to
the legitimacy of note 1 in the commentary to USSG § 4B1.2, holding that the
Sentencing Commission “acted within [its] broad grant of authority in construing
attempts to commit drug crimes as controlled substance offenses for purposes of
determining career offender status.” Defendant states that in Chavez this court did not
explicitly address whether the Commission had acted improperly by including
attempts only in commentary, rather than by amending the language of the guideline
itself. But our opinion specifically noted that commentary is not authoritative if it
“violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly
erroneous reading of, [the applicable] guideline.” Id. at 1226. And we must have been
considering those requirements when we wrote: “Because the commentary [to
§ 4B1.2] interprets controlled substance offenses as including convictions for
attempted drug trafficking, and because the commentary is authoritative, the district
court properly determined that Mr. Chavez should be classified as a career offender.”
Id. at 1228 (emphasis added). The natural reading of the opinion would be that the
panel implicitly rejected the argument now made by Defendant.12 Indeed, several
other circuits have read Chavez as rejecting that very argument. See, e.g., Smith, 989
12
This is not to say that this implicit rejection would be precedent that would
bind later panels of this court.
24
Appellate Case: 20-4003 Document: 010110714502 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 25
F.3d at 585; Winstead, 890 F.3d at 1091; United States v. Walton, 840 F. App’x 46,
47 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 163 (2021).
In light of our opinion in Chavez and the absence of any supporting decision
by any other circuit at the time, we do not think that it was deficient performance by
Defendant’s counsel at sentencing to fail to raise a claim that the commentary relied
on by the district court was invalid because it was inconsistent with the guideline
itself. We are confident that there were scores of competent attorneys who likewise
failed to raise the issue during that period of time. Defendant’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel on this ground must be rejected.
For these reasons, we find that counsel did not perform deficiently in failing to
challenge either (1) the categorical fit between Utah Code § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii) and the
definition of a controlled-substance offense in USSG § 4B1.2 or (2) the
Commission’s authority to include attempt offenses in the definition via commentary.
III. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Appellant’s motion to file an
oversized brief is GRANTED.
25