Source: cases/18usc924/us-549-47-lopez-v-gonzales.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_549/0047_01/index.html
Unless a state offense is punishable as a federal felony it does not count.
for purposes of § 924(c)(2) the crimes the CSA defines as “felonies” are those crimes to which it assigns a punishment exceeding one year’s imprisonment.
In sum, we hold that a state offense constitutes a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law.
Accordingly, by the plain terms of § 924(c)(2), conduct prohibited by the CSA may qualify as a “drug trafficking crime” if under either federal law or state law the conduct is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment.
Lopez’s state felony offense qualifies as a “drug trafficking crime” as defined in § 924(c)(2).
casedsl 1
case /us/549/0047-01
name Lopez v. Gonzales
cite 549 U.S. 47 (2006)
court Supreme Court of the United States
date 2006-12-05
url catalog/cases/us/volume_549/0047_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/us_549.jsonl sha1=b016b509bd0944ca5f0f71443b82b67ed9661ed8 chars=38207
law 18usc924 (c)(2)
role comparator
posture immigration removal (civil); BIA and CA8 held a South Dakota felony conviction for aiding and abetting cocaine possession an INA "aggravated felony" (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), which borrows the 924(c)(2) definition of "drug trafficking crime"); certiorari by the noncitizen; reversed and remanded. No 924(c) prosecution is involved
result claimant-lost
element predicate.drug : not-satisfied [law]
count South Dakota conviction, S.D. Codified Laws 22-42-5 / 22-3-3 (aiding and abetting possession of cocaine)
theory whether a state felony that the CSA punishes only as a misdemeanor is a "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act"
variant csa/state-felony-but-federal-misdemeanor-possession
fact @2239..2422 [supports] | In 1997, he was arrested on state charges in South Dakota, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting another person’s possession of cocaine, and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
fact @6650..6842 [cuts-against] | Commerce, however, was no part of Lopez’s South Dakota offense of helping someone else to possess, and certainly it is no element of simple possession, with which the State equates that crime.
fact @12180..12363 [cuts-against absent] | Yet the Government admits it has never begun a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1)(A) where the underlying “drug trafficking crime” was a state felony but a federal misdemeanor.
rule @9019..9094 | Unless a state offense is punishable as a federal felony it does not count.
rule @20029..20182 | for purposes of § 924(c)(2) the crimes the CSA defines as “felonies” are those crimes to which it assigns a punishment exceeding one year’s imprisonment.
held @16281..16464 | In sum, we hold that a state offense constitutes a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law.
gloss Construction of the (c)(2) definition in its borrowed INA setting: "felony punishable under the CSA" means punishable AS A FELONY under the CSA (more than one year), whatever the State calls it. Simple possession is a federal misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. 844(a), so the state conviction is not a "drug trafficking crime". Nothing is found about any firearm conduct; the block says what kind of offense can serve as a 924(c) drug predicate. Federal possession felonies (cocaine base over five grams, recidivist possession) do qualify.
element predicate.drug : satisfied [law]
scope dissent
opinion Thomas, J., dissenting
count South Dakota conviction
variant csa/state-felony-but-federal-misdemeanor-possession
rule @25580..25805 | Accordingly, by the plain terms of § 924(c)(2), conduct prohibited by the CSA may qualify as a “drug trafficking crime” if under either federal law or state law the conduct is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment.
held @23550..23645 | Lopez’s state felony offense qualifies as a “drug trafficking crime” as defined in § 924(c)(2).
gloss Dissent reads the definition as two separate requirements (a felony under state or federal law; conduct punishable at all under the CSA) and treats the "may be prosecuted in a court of the United States" clause of (c)(1)(A) as the only federal-crime limit.
misfit Comparator case (known misfit 1 and Moncrieffe's): the INA incorporates the 924(c)(2) definition, and the Court construes that definition to decide removability. `role comparator` cannot name the incorporating law (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B)); "claimant" is forced (the Government seeking the aggravated-felony label lost); no element of the 924(c) offense other than the predicate definition is touched, so no use/carry/firearm/nexus blocks are written.
misfit The test compares a state offense with federal offense definitions, not facts with an element. The `fact` lines are the record of conviction, a characterization of the state offense's elements, and a Government concession about charging practice; polarity is relative to "the state offense is a CSA felony" and is nearly meaningless for the first line, whose state-felony sentence supports only the rejected reading (known misfit 6).
misfit The parent `predicate` element's text ("for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States") is discussed in a footnote and in the dissent as a separate federal-crime limitation; that relation between `predicate` and `predicate.drug` is prose only.
misfit The interpretation rests heavily on the ordinary meaning of the INA's own term "illicit trafficking" (commercial dealing), i.e. on the borrowing statute; how far the holding construes 924(c)(2) for 924(c) prosecutions themselves is stated by the Court (same phrase, same meaning) but cannot be flagged.