United States v. Minor: Two Major Issues

This Note analyzes a 2024 Fifth Circuit opinion concerning two issues: “(1) whether the district court erred by applying the career-offender enhancement when calculating Minor’s . . . range” under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), and “(2) if so, whether that error was harmless.” In United States v. Minor, the Fifth Circuit first held that the district court erred by applying the career-offender enhancement when calculating Minor’s Guidelines range because the defendant’s prior marijuana convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). Second, the court held that the error was not harmless because the district court neither considered both Guidelines ranges nor met its heavy burden in establishing that the erroneous Guidelines calculation did not influence the sentence.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Texas A&M law review arguendo.
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.37419/lr.v13.arg.2
Primary Topic
Legal Systems and Judicial Processes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

United States v. Minor: Two Major Issues

Hemangi Patel
Texas A&M law review arguendo.
Legal Systems and Judicial Processes
article

United States v. Minor: Two Major Issues

Hemangi Patel
article en

Abstract

This Note analyzes a 2024 Fifth Circuit opinion concerning two issues: “(1) whether the district court erred by applying the career-offender enhancement when calculating Minor’s . . . range” under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), and “(2) if so, whether that error was harmless.” In United States v. Minor, the Fifth Circuit first held that the district court erred by applying the career-offender enhancement when calculating Minor’s Guidelines range because the defendant’s prior marijuana convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). Second, the court held that the error was not harmless because the district court neither considered both Guidelines ranges nor met its heavy burden in establishing that the erroneous Guidelines calculation did not influence the sentence.

Texas A&M law review arguendo.Vol. 13(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Legal Systems and Judicial Processes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.