Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025-07-02
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)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 | 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. | sale/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. |
| /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 | 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 variant | 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. |
| /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 | 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. |
| /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 | 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. |
| /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 | 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.
/f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025
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.
/f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025
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.