In a different context, some more notable circuit caterwauling over the categorical approach to criminal history

In this post a few days ago, I flagged the notable opinion from a Third Circuit judge in US v. Harris, No. 17-1861 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2023) (available here), lamenting the ugly story of the Armed Career Criminal Act's reliance on the "categorical approach" to assess criminal priors required by Supreme Court precedent.   Today, I see a Second Circuit jurist authoring a distinct chapter of this ugly story in a different sentencing context.  Concurring in US v. Chaires, No. 20-4162 (2d Cir Dec. 7, 2023) (available here), Judge Sullivan explains why he thinks his circuit has it all wrong in its approach to "the 'controlled substance offense' predicate to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 — the career offender enhancement."  Hard-core sentencing fans may be uniquely able to work through the whole opinion, but it is worth the full read.  And Judge Sullivan's opinion ends this way:

Given the Commission’s indecision and the Supreme Court’s reluctance, I think it imperative that the courts of appeal converge on the best reading of the career offender enhancement.  To my mind, there can be little doubt which of the two options is that best reading.  The state-dependent approach is firmly grounded in section 4B1.2(b)’s text and will permit a relatively straightforward inquiry.  The categorical approach lacks any foothold in that text, has proven to be hopelessly difficult to administer, and illogically disqualifies untold numbers of state and federal narcotics convictions from serving as predicate offenses — even though those convictions were in fact premised on a federally controlled substance.  For these reasons, I continue to believe that section 4B1.2(b) calls for a state-dependent approach to controlled substance offenses, as six of our sister circuits have already held.  See Jones, 81 F.4th at 599 n.5.  I therefore urge the Second Circuit to correct this error through an en banc or mini en banc proceeding that would overrule our currently binding precedent in Townsend and bring us in line with the majority of circuits to have addressed this issue.