Case Explained: UNITED STATES v. REY DAVID FULCAR

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-06

The First Circuit affirmed Rey David Fulcar’s three federal convictions and his sentences, holding that while the District Court erred in applying the career offender sentencing enhancement based on a prior state conviction, such error was harmless. The court determined that the term “controlled substance” within the career offender guideline refers exclusively to substances controlled under federal law at the time of the defendant’s federal sentencing, not state law or the time of the prior conviction. Consequently, Fulcar’s 2008 Massachusetts conviction for possession with intent to distribute a substance defined as “cocaine” (which included ioflupane) did not qualify because ioflupane had been removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act schedules by the time of his federal sentencing. Additionally, the court rejected Fulcar’s challenges to his guilty pleas and Second Amendment arguments regarding his firearm possession conviction, finding that he failed to preserve a claim regarding Rule 11 warnings for plain error review and waived his Second Amendment argument by failing to develop it in his appellate brief. Because the District Court explicitly stated at sentencing that it would have imposed the same 96-month prison term regardless of the Guidelines calculation, the court concluded that the erroneous application of the career offender guideline did not affect Fulcar’s substantial rights or the fairness of the proceedings.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.