Fifth Circuit Clarifies that Louisiana Synthetic-Cannabinoid Convictions Are Not Automatically “Controlled Substance Offenses” for Career-Offender Purposes

Introduction

In United States v. Edmond, No. 24-30255 (5th Cir. July 18, 2025) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated Delvin Edmond’s 262-month sentence after finding that the district court plainly erred in treating a 2019 Louisiana conviction for possession with intent to distribute synthetic cannabinoids as a predicate “controlled substance offense” under the federal Sentencing Guidelines’ career-offender enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1).

The appeal raised two central questions:

• Whether Louisiana Revised Statutes § 40:966(A) (distribution statute) coupled with the Louisiana drug schedules (§ 40:964) is broader than the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) with respect to synthetic cannabinoids, and
• Whether reliance on a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) alone, without the “Shepard documents” that specify the exact offense elements, can support the enhancement.

Answering both questions in Edmond’s favor, the Fifth Circuit set down a precedent that will reverberate across the circuit’s sentencing jurisprudence.

Summary of the Judgment

Reviewing for plain error because the defense lodged no objection below, the panel (Chief Judge Elrod, Judges King and Graves) held:

1. Louisiana’s definition of “synthetic cannabinoids” in 2018 swept more broadly than the CSA’s definition at the time of federal sentencing in 2024. Therefore, Edmond’s prior conviction criminalized conduct that the federal definition did not reach.
2. Because the state statute is at least partially indivisible—or, if divisible, the record contained no Shepard documents isolating the exact substance—the district court clearly erred when it used that conviction as a career-offender predicate.
3. The error affected Edmond’s substantial rights: it inflated his guideline range from 151-188 months to 262-327 months.
4. The panel exercised its discretion to correct the error and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Minor, 121 F.4th 1085 (5th Cir. 2024)
  Minor established that courts look to the federal CSA in effect at the time of the instant sentencing to define the “generic” controlled substance offense. Edmond leverages Minor to compare Louisiana’s 2018 schedule with the 2024 federal one.
• Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016)
  Provides the categorical and modified-categorical approach framework for comparing statutes.
• Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013)
  Clarifies that a prior conviction qualifies only if its elements are the same as or narrower than the generic offense.
• United States v. Frierson, 981 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2020)
  Teaches that Louisiana substantive drug statutes must be read in tandem with the state drug schedules.
• United States v. McCann, 613 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2010)
  Holds it is clear error to rely solely on a PSR’s characterization of a prior offense when applying the modified categorical approach.
• Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) & United States v. Johnson, 943 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2019)
  Articulate the four-prong plain-error test.
• State v. Henry, 287 So.3d 847 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019)
  Demonstrates Louisiana’s real-world application of § 40:964 to cannabinoids that are not federally scheduled, satisfying the “realistic probability” test from Castillo-Rivera.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Step 1 – Identify the Generic Offense. The panel defines “controlled substance” by reference to the federal CSA’s schedules effective at the time of Edmond’s federal sentencing (April 2024).
2. Step 2 – Apply the Categorical (or Modified Categorical) Approach.
   • Under the categorical approach, Louisiana Schedule I(F) listed 28 compounds/groups, while the CSA listed only 7 structural classes plus 15 named compounds.
   • The state statute therefore criminalized additional conduct. That categorical mismatch ends the inquiry in Edmond’s favor.
   • Even assuming divisibility, the modified categorical approach fails because no Shepard documents pinpoint which cannabinoid prompted Edmond’s conviction. The PSR is insufficient under McCann.
3. Step 3 – Plain-Error Analysis.
   The mismatch is “clear or obvious” in light of statutory text and binding precedent. The incorrect guideline range affected substantial rights (a 111-month disparity at the low end), and the Fifth Circuit, following its usual practice, exercised discretion to correct.

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

1. Guideline Litigation in the Fifth Circuit. Defense counsel will vigorously challenge state drug predicates, especially synthetic cannabinoid and designer-drug statutes, by highlighting discrepancies with the CSA.

2. Prosecutorial Burden. U.S. Attorneys must now collect and submit Shepard documents for each alleged predicate—indictments, plea colloquies, minute entries—rather than relying on PSRs.

3. Louisiana & Other States’ Broad Schedules. States whose schedules sweep in additional synthetic or analog substances (e.g., Texas, Mississippi) will face similar scrutiny.

4. Retroactive Relief. Prisoners sentenced under § 4B1.1 using the same Louisiana cannabinoid convictions may pursue resentencing via 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions or direct appeals if still pending.

5. Future Legislative Action. The U.S. Sentencing Commission or Congress could amend guideline definitions to reference state law more broadly, but unless that occurs, the CSA-based categorical comparison remains controlling.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Career Offender Enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1)
  A provision that dramatically raises the sentencing guideline range for defendants 18 or older who commit a felony “crime of violence” or “controlled substance offense” and who have two such prior felonies. The label can add years—or decades—to a sentence.
• Categorical Approach
  A method where courts compare elements of the prior statute with those of the generic federal offense without looking at what the defendant actually did.
• Modified Categorical Approach
  Used when a statute lists alternatives (making it “divisible”). Courts examine a limited set of record documents—Shepard documents—to determine which alternative formed the conviction.
• Shepard Documents
  Named after Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005). They include the charging instrument, plea agreement, plea colloquy transcript, jury instructions, or verdict forms.
• Plain Error Review
  A four-part test applied when the defense did not object below: (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) seriously affecting the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
• Realistic Probability Test
  The defendant must show actual cases where the state applied the statute to conduct outside the generic federal offense, proving the mismatch is real, not hypothetical.

Conclusion

United States v. Edmond reinforces two bedrock principles of federal sentencing: (1) State drug statutes that cover substances beyond the federal CSA cannot supply automatic predicates for the career-offender enhancement, and (2) sentencing courts may not rely on barebones PSR characterizations when applying the modified categorical approach. By insisting on faithful application of the categorical framework and robust record support, the Fifth Circuit has fortified defendants’ procedural rights and injected greater uniformity into guideline calculations. Going forward, prosecutors must furnish Shepard-compliant proof, and defense counsel have a powerful new precedent to contest over-inclusive state drug predicates. The decision thus stands as a significant checkpoint against unwarranted sentence inflation in drug prosecutions throughout the Fifth Circuit.