United States of America v. Jesus Alfonso Ruiz

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2965
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jesus Alfonso Ruiz
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: January 12, 2026
Filed: January 28, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After Jesus Ruiz pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute controlled
substances, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D), 846, the

-- 1 of 2 --

district court,1 in sentencing him to 210 months' imprisonment, determined that Ruiz
was a career offender because he had two prior felony convictions for controlled
substance offenses. See USSG § 4B1.1(a). On appeal, Ruiz maintains that the district
court erred in deeming him a career offender because, he says, his 2015 Illinois
conviction for possessing with the intent to deliver more than 5,000 grams of
cannabis, see 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 550/5(g) (2015), isn't a controlled substance offense
since it doesn't categorically involve a controlled substance punishable under federal
law. Elaborating on that contention, Ruiz explains that when he was convicted of the
Illinois offense, Illinois didn't exclude hemp from the reach of the offense, contrary
to what federal law now does with respect to marijuana offenses. And since federal
law is narrower than Illinois law at the time of his conviction, the argument runs, his
Illinois conviction cannot be a career-offender predicate.
Our court, though, has already held that a controlled substance underlying a
state conviction need not be a controlled substance under federal law to constitute a
controlled substance offense under the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v.
Bailey, 37 F.4th 467, 469–70 (8th Cir. 2022) (per curiam); United States v.
Henderson, 11 F.4th 713, 718–19 (8th Cir. 2021). Ruiz contends that we can
disregard Bailey and Henderson because they are inconsistent with some of our prior
decisions, but our court has already found that argument unconvincing. See United
States v. Ellis, 129 F.4th 1075, 1083 (8th Cir. 2025). And since our panel is bound to
follow the decisions of prior panels, see United States v. Rethford, 85 F.4th 895,
897–98 (8th Cir. 2023), we reject Ruiz's contention.
Affirmed.
______________________________
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --