11th Cir.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VANSHUN TRAYWICK

April 14, 2026 ·2:23-cr-00309-ECM-SMD-2 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a defendant's sentence for drug conspiracy despite arguments that the career offender enhancement was improperly applied. The court held that the sentence was substantively reasonable given the defendant's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offenses.

Background

Vanshun Traywick was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five hundred grams or more of cocaine. He appealed his total sentence of two hundred eighty-eight months, arguing the district court erred in applying the career offender enhancement because his conspiracy convictions were inchoate crimes. Traywick cited the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States versus Dupree, which held that inchoate offenses do not qualify as controlled substance offenses under the guidelines. The district court noted that Dupree was not retroactive to Traywick’s 2020 conduct and that the Sentencing Commission had since amended the guidelines to include inchoate offenses. Traywick also argued for a downward variance based on his family responsibilities and community involvement.

The court’s reasoning

The court determined it was unnecessary to address Traywick’s challenge to the career offender enhancement because the district court explicitly stated it would have imposed the same sentence even if the enhancement were erroneous. The court assumed the correct guidelines range was one hundred to one hundred twenty-five months and reviewed the sentence for substantive reasonableness. The court found the sentence reasonable given the extremely serious nature of the drug conspiracies, Traywick’s extensive criminal history spanning two decades, and his commission of the instant offenses while on parole. The court concluded the district court did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors.

What it means going forward

The ruling reinforces that appellate courts may affirm sentences as substantively reasonable even if a sentencing guideline calculation is assumed to be erroneous, provided the district court has stated it would impose the same sentence based on other factors.