United States v. Latroy Currie

Circuit 8Aug 5, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 63/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentences of Latroy L. Currie and Malik K. Marshall, rejecting their argument that a post-Kisor narrowing of deference to Sentencing Guidelines commentary precludes use of "intended loss" in calculating their Guidelines range under USSG § 2B1.1. Relying on its prior decision in United States v. Nock, the court held that the commentary remains authoritative unless plainly erroneous and therefore the district court correctly applied the 20-level intended-loss enhancement.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether, after Kisor v. Wilkie, courts must continue to give Stinson deference to Sentencing Guidelines commentary—specifically the definition of “loss” in USSG § 2B1.1—to apply the greater of actual or intended loss.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 8(this circuit)

Continue to give Stinson deference; apply the greater of actual or intended loss under § 2B1.1 commentary.

Kisor limits deference; intended loss not applied unless stated in guideline text (commentary not controlling).

Conflict Summary

Some circuits continue to accord Stinson deference to the § 2B1.1 commentary and apply intended loss, while other circuits read Kisor as limiting such deference and therefore look only to actual loss unless the guideline text itself mentions intended loss. The Eighth Circuit aligns with the former view.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Latroy L. Currie; Malik K. Marshall
Appellee:United States of America