Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025-07-02
21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: comparator; posture: criminal; guilty plea to one count of fentanyl distribution; defendant appeals only the Guidelines career-offender enhancement (whether prior Pennsylvania drug-delivery convictions are "controlled substance offenses"); result: claimant-won; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The § 841 conviction is only the backdrop (guilty plea, unchallenged: the `role background` blocks); the entire analysis is a categorical comparison of a STATE statute against the Guidelines term "distribution" (`role comparator`). The role cannot name the compared law, the comparison is still an ad-hoc x-categorical-match element, and the conduct-level `fact` slot is filled with statements about statutory text and the record of conviction, so polarity there means "towards / away from a match".
The yardstick is U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), not § 841; the opinion touches the federal statute only by restating Groves (federal "distribute" = "deliver" incl. attempted transfer, 21 U.S.C. § 802(8),(11)). That is a genuine interpretive rule for act.distribute but it is precedent restated, not a holding of this case; `rule` cannot mark that difference ([quoted] does not fit: the sentence is this court's paraphrase of its own precedent around quoted fragments).
`result` claimant-won describes the sentencing appeal outcome (affirmed); the § 841 liability itself was never contested, so "result of the claim under this statute in this opinion" is ill-defined.
Source text is a slip opinion flattened into a single paragraph with page headers ("USCA4 Appeal: ... Pg: n of 15") and footnotes interleaved mid-sentence; several of the best sentences (e.g. the full sentence concluding the attempted-transfer holding, and the statement of the least-culpable-conduct test) are split by header debris and can only be quoted as fragments.
An Erie-style question (how a federal court treats a non-precedential intermediate state-court reading of the state statute) drives half the opinion; it is a rule about sources of law, not about any element.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 18
| Case | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | Controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812 Schedules I-V) or counterfeit substance (§ 841(a)(2)) | Authorization exception ("Except as authorized by this subchapter") for registered practitioners/handlers | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits | ✓ satisfied · concededNot counted: background/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits |
Elements 7–12 of 18
| Case | Death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance (§ 841(b)(1)(A)-(C) 20-year mandatory minimum) | Recidivist enhancement for prior conviction for a serious drug felony or serious violent felony (§ 841(b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 851) | Prohibited act under § 841(a)(1): manufacture, distribute, or dispense | Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes | Aiding and abetting route under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (cross-statute) | Categorical / modified categorical comparison of state drug offense to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (INA / ACCA / Guidelines) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✓ satisfied · lawNot counted: comparator/merits ✓ satisfied · lawNot counted: comparator/merits |
Elements 13–18 of 18
| Case | Drug conspiracy route under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (cross-statute) | Fifth Amendment Due Process / Equal Protection challenge to carrier-medium weight sentencing (Chapman) | Affirmative defense of entrapment (government inducement + lack of predisposition) | Rule of lenity in construing ambiguous penalty provisions of § 841(b) | Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness challenge to "mixture or substance" or analogue provisions | Continuing-offense venue for § 841(a)(1) possession with intent to distribute / distribution (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) The 841 conviction rests on the guilty plea and is not challenged; it is the backdrop of the sentencing appeal. | controlled-buy-by-informant | Twice, Suncar sold a confidential informant oxycodone pills, some of which contained a detectable amount of fentanyl.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [2811:2928] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.Suncar ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [3051:3178] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C); theory: federal "distribute" restated as the analogy for reading Pennsylvania "delivery"; subject: theory=federal "distribute" restated as the analogy for reading Pennsylvania "delivery" Applied to no conduct in this case. The rule line (restating Groves, 4th Cir. 2023) is the opinion's only construction of federal "distribute": an attempted transfer is a completed distribution, not an inchoate attempt. | Unspecified route | because under federal law the term “distribute” means “to deliver,” and the term “to deliver” includes “actual, constructive, or attempted transfer[s],” an “attempted transfer” is an actual delivery, not an attempted one.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [21003:21224] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Recidivist enhancement for prior conviction for a serious drug felony or serious violent felony (§ 841(b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 851) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) The recidivism issue is the Guidelines career-offender enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1/4B1.2(b)), not a § 841(b) statutory enhancement. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812 Schedules I-V) or counterfeit substance (§ 841(a)(2)) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) Pills sold as oxycodone, charged as fentanyl under (b)(1)(C) (no quantity threshold); knowledge of the fentanyl content is not discussed. | identity/counterfeit-pills-containing-fentanyl | Twice, Suncar sold a confidential informant oxycodone pills, some of which contained a detectable amount of fentanyl.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [2811:2928] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Categorical / modified categorical comparison of state drug offense to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (INA / ACCA / Guidelines) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C); count: prior Pennsylvania convictions, 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30) delivery, vs Guidelines "distribution"; theory: offer-to-sell overbreadth argument; subject: count=prior Pennsylvania convictions, 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30) delivery, vs Guidelines "distribution"; theory=offer-to-sell overbreadth argument A non-precedential intermediate state decision (Walker) reading offers into the statute is treated as dicta; the court predicts the state supreme court would follow the text. Statutes that expressly reach offers (e.g. Texas "deliver") are overbroad; this one is not. | state-predicate-matches-federal-offence/no-implied-offer-to-sell | Suncar’s two prior state drug convictions were for delivery of cocaine under 35 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [3428:3551] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.The Pennsylvania statute, of course, says nothing about offers to sell, but Suncar asks us to read in that language based on a single non-precedential decision from a Pennsylvania court.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [9844:10030] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.we agree with Glass that the Pennsylvania legislature’s choice to include offers to sell in one provision of section 780-113 and to exclude them in another must mean something.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [16947:17123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.All said, we reject Suncar’s argument that section 780- 113(a)(30) includes offers to sell.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [18844:18935] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Categorical / modified categorical comparison of state drug offense to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (INA / ACCA / Guidelines) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C); count: prior Pennsylvania convictions, 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30) delivery, vs Guidelines "distribution"; theory: attempted-transfer overbreadth argument; subject: count=prior Pennsylvania convictions, 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30) delivery, vs Guidelines "distribution"; theory=attempted-transfer overbreadth argument Turns on whether the jurisdiction criminalises attempt separately (then "attempted transfer" inside "delivery" is a completed offence); contrast Campbell (W. Va. statute treated as embedding an inchoate attempt, not a predicate). | state-predicate-matches-federal-offence/attempted-transfer-is-completed-delivery | And the statute defines “delivery” as “the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, other drug, device or cosmetic whether or not there is an agency relationship.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [8800:9020] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.But Pennsylvania does criminalize attempts separately, as do North Carolina and South Carolina.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [23155:23250] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.If a court read the drug distribution provision as criminalizing attempt offenses when a separate provision already did so, it would render that separate provision superfluous.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [21410:21586] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.and criminalizes only the completed offense of “attempted transfer,” section 780–113(a)(30) isn’t categorically overbroad as compared to the guidelines.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [23976:24128] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
because under federal law the term “distribute” means “to deliver,” and the term “to deliver” includes “actual, constructive, or attempted transfer[s],” an “attempted transfer” is an actual delivery, not an attempted one.
United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
because under federal law the term “distribute” means “to deliver,” and the term “to deliver” includes “actual, constructive, or attempted transfer[s],” an “attempted transfer” is an actual delivery, not an attempted one.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [21003:21224] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.Because 21 U.S.C. § 802(8),(11) defines "distribute" as "deliver" and "deliver" as "actual, constructive, or attempted transfer", a completed § 841(a)(1) distribution includes an attempted transfer (United States v. Suncar, 142 F.4th 259 (3d Cir. 2025)).
interpretation
we agree with Glass that the Pennsylvania legislature’s choice to include offers to sell in one provision of section 780-113 and to exclude them in another must mean something.
United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
we agree with Glass that the Pennsylvania legislature’s choice to include offers to sell in one provision of section 780-113 and to exclude them in another must mean something.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [16947:17123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.Frequently litigated when § 841 serves as the generic federal comparator in immigration (Moncrieffe), Armed Career Criminal Act, or Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §§ 2L1.2, 4B1.2) cases.