THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. PALOS
In this case, the defendant Anthony Palos pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison. Police had been investigating Palos and suspected that he was involved in drug trafficking and investigators got a warrant and legally searched his home in Ohio. During the search, investigators found illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a gun. Palos admitted to the police that he bought the firearm off the streets which proved true as the gun was later confirmed as stolen. It is also undisputed that Palos was a convicted felon as he had previously been convicted to two drug trafficking offenses in state court. The dispute in this case arose at the sentencing stage for Palos’s case. At sentencing, the District Court determined that the two previous drug convictions met the requirements to be deemed “controlled substance offenses” which boosted Palos’s base offense level on his sentencing guidelines to a base level of 24. Palos argued that only one of his convictions qualified as a controlled substance offense as his other conviction was only an attempt and was entitled to a lower base level of 20. Palos was also given a higher sentence due to the gun being stolen although he argued in his defense that he didn’t know the gun was stolen. He appealed his sentence and the determinations made by the District Court regarding the court’s imposition of two prior controlled substance offenses and the stolen gun as it applied to his sentencing guidelines.
SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT DECISION REJECTING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT
Upon review of this case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Palos was entitled to only have one prior controlled substance offense apply to his sentencing guidelines but found that it didn’t matter whether Palos knew or should have known that the gun was stolen. The Sixth Circuit Court determined that one of Palos’s previous drug convictions was only an attempt and not a completed sale. A previous case entitled United States v. Havis determined that an offer to sell drugs is considered an attempt and made clear that the relevant definition of a controlled substance offense for these purposes does not include attempt crimes. This decision provided a clear answer as to whether a controlled substance offense under the career offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 includes attempt crimes. At issue here was a conflict within the Guideline itself where in the text of the Guideline it stated that attempts were not controlled substance offenses but later said that they were included in the commentary. It was found that the text of the Guideline controls in cases where it conflicts with the commentary. This resulted in a reversal in part of the judgement of the case and Palos being sent back to District Court for resentencing. If you are facing a federal drug trafficking or controlled substance offense, then it is important to speak to an experienced federal drug trafficking defense attorney as soon as possible to best understand what types of charges and sentence you may be facing.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
If you are facing federal drug trafficking charges and have any prior convictions at the federal or state level, then this could affect you directly. It is important to note that federal prosecutors will use every option available to make sure you end up with the highest sentencing guideline range possible in your case. This includes attempting to qualify prior convictions improperly in order to punish you with sentencing level enhancements which can significantly increase your potential prison sentence. It is important that if you are facing a sentence for a federal conviction, that your sentencing guidelines are calculated and applied correctly. A failure to do so can result in an incorrect sentence which can result in extra years of unnecessary prison time. If you have any questions about your specific federal drug trafficking case, then call us today at Bajoka Law so we can help.
