United States v. Hinkle, No. 15-10067 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his 188 month sentence, contending that the district court erred in determining that he was a career offender within the meaning of USSG 4B1.1(a). Defendant argues that neither of his prior Texas convictions, one for burglary and the other for delivery of a controlled substance, constitutes a predicate offense under the career-offender guidelines provision. The court concluded, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mathis v. United States, that defendant's conviction for delivery of a controlled substance is not a “controlled substance offense” within the meaning of the Guidelines. Therefore, the career-offender enhancement did not apply based on the record presently before the court. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.