United States v. Suncar – “Attempted Transfer” Is a Completed Distribution:
The Fourth Circuit Confirms Pennsylvania § 780-113(a)(30) as a Predicate “Controlled Substance Offense”

1. Introduction

United States v. Suncar, No. 23-4765 (4th Cir. July 2 2025) addresses when a prior state drug conviction can trigger the federal career-offender enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1). Rashun Rafael Suncar, convicted federally for fentanyl distribution, challenged the district court’s reliance on two prior Pennsylvania convictions under 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30).

The appeal raised two textual overbreadth theories:

1. § 780-113(a)(30) purportedly covers offers to sell drugs, broader than “distribution” in the Guidelines;
2. It also criminalises attempted transfers, allegedly an un-punishable “attempt” under then-existing § 4B1.2(b).

The Fourth Circuit rejected both arguments, aligning itself with Third-Circuit precedent and its own post-Campbell line of cases. The decision adds clarity to how “attempted transfer” should be read and cements Pennsylvania’s principal delivery statute as a qualifying predicate.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The court, per Chief Judge Diaz, affirmed the district court’s application of the career-offender guideline.
• It held that § 780-113(a)(30) does not encompass mere “offers to sell.”
• It further held that the phrase “attempted transfer” in that statute denotes a completed delivery and is therefore fully within “distribution” as used in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b).
• Consequently, Suncar’s two state convictions are valid predicate “controlled substance offenses.”
• Because the enhancement stood, the panel declined to reach Suncar’s secondary procedural and substantive-reasonableness arguments, which were also forfeited.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

1. United States v. Glass, 904 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2018) – Held that § 780-113(a)(30) does not cover offers to sell. Key influence: Provided direct interpretive foundation for excluding “offers” from Pennsylvania’s delivery statute.
2. Commonwealth v. Walker (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021) – A non-precedential state decision that had suggested otherwise. The Fourth Circuit found it unpersuasive, treating its comments on Glass as dicta.
3. United States v. Dawson, 32 F.4th 254 (3d Cir. 2022) – Concluded that “attempted transfer” in § 780-113(a)(30) is a completed offense, not an inchoate attempt. The Fourth Circuit explicitly followed this reasoning.
4. United States v. Campbell, 22 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2022) – Held an inchoate attempt under a West Virginia statute is not a “controlled substance offense.” Suncar relied on it, but the court limited its reach.
5. United States v. Groves, 65 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2023); United States v. Miller, 75 F.4th 215 (4th Cir. 2023); United States v. Davis, 75 F.4th 428 (4th Cir. 2023) – Post-Campbell cases holding that statutes using “attempted transfer” within the definition of “deliver” capture completed distribution.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The panel used the categorical approach: compare the least culpable conduct punishable under the state statute with conduct covered by Guideline § 4B1.2(b).

1. “Offer to sell” argument:
   • Textual comparison – § 780-113(a)(30) omits “offer” language, while another subsection (§ 780-113(a)(1)) expressly includes it, signalling legislative intent to exclude offers from § 780-113(a)(30).
   • Glass is binding federal authority persuasively construing Pennsylvania law; Walker, being non-precedential and minimally reasoned, could not outweigh it.
2. “Attempted transfer” argument:
   • The term appears in the statutory definition of “delivery”; thus, upon proof of an attempted transfer, the Commonwealth has proven a completed delivery.
   • Pennsylvania separately criminalises attempts via its general attempt statute. Reading “attempted transfer” as an inchoate attempt would make the general attempt provision superfluous—a result disfavoured by the canon against surplusage.
   • Under Groves and progeny, the same reasoning applies to federal and other state statutes; § 780-113(a)(30) therefore aligns with “distribution” in § 4B1.2(b).

3.3 Impact and Future Significance

• Inter-Circuit Harmony: The Fourth Circuit’s holding brings it into lockstep with the Third Circuit (Dawson), reducing forum shopping and uncertainty for defendants with Pennsylvania priors.
• Clarification Post-Campbell: It narrows Campbell to situations where a state scheme truly collapses attempt and completed conduct, signalling that most delivery statutes containing “attempted transfer” will still qualify.
• Sentencing Guidelines Consistency: Until the 2023 Guidelines amendment indisputably added “attempt” to the definition, circuits split; Suncar provides transitional guidance for pre-2023 offenses.
• State-Statute Drafting Lessons: Legislatures may avoid ambiguity by clearly separating “offers” and “attempts” if they wish to create broader or narrower liability. Courts will read omissions deliberately.
• Potential Supreme Court Review: Although the decision aligns with prevailing authority, the interplay between “attempted transfer” and “attempt” continues to invite certiorari petitions in the categorical-approach arena.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Career-Offender Enhancement

An increase in advisory Guideline sentencing range for defendants with at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence or controlled-substance offenses (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1).

Controlled Substance Offense (Guidelines)

A state or federal felony that “prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing” of controlled substances, or possession with intent to do those things (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)).

Categorical Approach

Courts examine the statutory elements, not the facts, of a prior conviction to see if it matches the federal definition. If the statute punishes any broader conduct, it cannot serve as a predicate.

Inchoate Offense

A crime of incomplete or preparatory conduct (e.g., attempt, solicitation, conspiracy). Traditionally treated differently from the “completed” crime in the Guidelines.

Canon Against Surplusage

Principle of statutory interpretation that courts should give effect to every word Congress (or a legislature) uses, avoiding readings that make language redundant.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Suncar crystallises a crucial interpretive rule: in drug-delivery statutes containing the phrase “attempted transfer,” that phrase describes a finished act of distribution, not an inchoate offense. By:

• Rejecting the notion that § 780-113(a)(30) covers mere “offers,” and
• Affirming that “attempted transfer” equates to completed distribution,

the Fourth Circuit confirmed that Pennsylvania delivery convictions remain valid predicates for federal career-offender status—even for offenses pre-dating the 2023 Guidelines amendment. The decision narrows the reach of Campbell, harmonises Fourth- and Third-Circuit precedent, and offers a clear analytical template for scrutinising other state drug statutes. Practitioners must now assume that, absent explicit “offer to sell” clauses and absent merger of attempt and completed offenses, delivery-type statutes will qualify under § 4B1.2(b).