A federal appeals court has ruled that a Louisiana marijuana conviction was improperly used to classify a defendant as a career offender, finding that the state’s marijuana law was broader than federal law because it included hemp. Despite acknowledging the sentencing error, the court refused to overturn the sentence, concluding that the mistake did not meet the legal threshold necessary to invalidate the defendant’s appeal waiver.
In an opinion issued October 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the case of Devin Chaney, who pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and armed bank robbery. As part of his plea agreement, Chaney waived most of his appeal rights in exchange for prosecutors dropping nine other charges.
Chaney challenged his classification as a career offender under federal sentencing guidelines, arguing that his 2019 Louisiana conviction for distributing a controlled dangerous substance should not have qualified as a predicate offense. His argument centered on differences between state and federal marijuana definitions following the federal legalization of hemp.
The appeals court agreed that the conviction should not have been used to establish career-offender status.
“Chaney has identified a clear or obvious error,” wrote Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith. The court explained that federal sentencing guidelines rely on the definition of controlled substances under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which excluded hemp while Louisiana’s marijuana law at the time included it.
“Therefore, the district court erred by classifying Chaney as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1,” the opinion states.
However, the court determined that identifying a sentencing error was not enough to overcome Chaney’s waiver of his appeal rights.
The case returned to the Fifth Circuit after the U.S. Supreme Court established a limited exception allowing defendants to challenge sentences despite appeal waivers when enforcing those waivers would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court described that exception as applying only to exceptionally serious errors, including sentences exceeding statutory limits, blatant constitutional violations or fundamentally deficient judicial proceedings.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that Chaney’s incorrect career-offender classification, although legally erroneous, did not satisfy that standard. The judges also rejected his argument that the district court’s handling of his sentencing objection constituted a serious procedural violation.
The October 19 decision replaces an earlier September 18 opinion and follows the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s previous judgment and order reconsideration.
The ruling leaves Chaney’s appeal dismissed despite the court’s explicit determination that his Louisiana marijuana conviction did not qualify for the federal sentencing enhancement.
Related posts:
New York Court Upholds Marijuana Tracking Requirements, Dismisses Separate Enforcement Lawsuit
NORML Urges Federal Appeals Court to Reconsider Ruling Overturning $31.8 Million Marijuana Verdict A...
