United States v. Mantrel Young, No. 16-3669 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in determining defendant's 2004 conviction for using a communication device to facilitate a drug transaction in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 843(b) qualified as a controlled substance offense for purposes of career offender enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 4B1.2(b).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3669 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Mantrel Deshun Young, originally named as Montrell Deshun Young lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: October 5, 2017 Filed: November 3, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Mantrel Young challenges the 120 month sentence the district court1 imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. possess and distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 846. In particular, Young argues his 2004 conviction for using a communication device to facilitate a drug transaction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) does not qualify as a "controlled substance offense" for purposes of the career offender enhancement, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). Not all § 843(b) offenses qualify as "controlled substance offenses," see United States v. Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d 798, 805 (5th Cir. 2009). A § 843(b) offense is a "controlled substance offense" "if the offense of conviction established that the underlying offense (the offense committed, caused, or facilitated) was a controlled substance offense," U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (2016) (quotation omitted). We conclude that it was not plain error when the district court determined that Young's 2004 conviction did so qualify, particularly because Young's attorney only generally objected to that determination and conceded that his offense did qualify under current case law. See U.S. v. Grimes, 702 F.3d 460, 469-70 (applying plain error review); Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d at 800-01 (reviewing for plain error because defendant did not specifically argue at sentencing that government failed to produce sufficient evidence that prior § 843(b) conviction constituted drug trafficking offense). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________
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.
