Source: cases/21usc841/f3d-20-229-united-states-v-vincent.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_20/0229_01/index.html
In order to establish the knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance, the government needed only.to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance.
It was irrelevant for the government to also show, that defendant was paid for the delivery.
The government submitted ample evidence for a rational fact finder to have found the essential elements of the drug possession offense charged in count 1 of the indictment.
Moreover, the government could satisfy its burden of establishing that defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana with intent to distribute it through the inferences drawn from evidence such as the quantity of the marijuana involved, United States v. Faymore, 736 F.2d 328, 333 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 868, 105 S.Ct. 213, 83 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984), the estimated street value of the marijuana, id., the purity of the marijuana, United States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 58 (8th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949, 94 S.Ct. 3076, 41 L.Ed.2d 669 (1974), and other evidence which would support the inference that the marijuana was not intended to. be used for personal use.
In satisfying its burden of establishing that defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed the marijuana with the intent to distribute it, the government introduced, through the testimony of several witnesses, evidence which inferred that the marijuana possessed by defendant was not for his personal use.
Thus, in contrast to the examples cited in the commentary note, the stalks and seeds need not be separated before the controlled substance can be used. Accordingly, the stalks and seeds are to be used in calculating the weight of a controlled substance.
casedsl 1
case /f3d/20/0229-01
name United States v. Vincent
cite 20 F.3d 229 (1994)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
date 1994-03-31
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_20/0229_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl sha1=e43567d0cc78810abee7c9264229eee3139f031e chars=42437
law 21usc841 (a)(1),(b)(1)(D)
role applied
posture criminal; jury conviction on one count charging both distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, plus two firearm counts (18 U.S.C. 924(c), 922(g)(3)); defendant appeals sufficiency and Sentencing Guidelines application
result claimant-won
element act.distribute : satisfied [proved]
variant sale/controlled-buy-by-informant
fact @6397..6623 [supports] | This witness testified that during a noncustodial interview defendant admitted to her that he had sold marijuana to a person on the day the search warrant was executed and that in the past he had shared marijuana with friénds.
fact @6808..6941 [supports] | In that sworn statement, defendant stated that he had given marijuana to a person who later'was identified as a government informant.
fact @7278..7466 [supports] | The witness then testified that he recovered from the informant a bag of marijuana and a portion of the marked funds not used in the purchase after the informant left the defendant’s home.
rule @5072..5271 | In order to establish the knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance, the government needed only.to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance.
rule @5293..5385 | It was irrelevant for the government to also show, that defendant was paid for the delivery.
held @4731..4903 | The government submitted ample evidence for a rational fact finder to have found the essential elements of the drug possession offense charged in count 1 of the indictment.
gloss Distribution = delivery (21 U.S.C. 802(11)); payment is not required, so the defendant's own account that he merely "gave" a small bag to the informant is itself an admission of distribution. About a quarter ounce.
element intent-to-distribute : satisfied [proved]
variant inferred/quantity-value-scales-and-prior-sale
fact @7933..8245 [supports] | Moreover, government witnesses testified that in the search of defendant’s house they seized over 15 pounds of high-quality marijuana, which had a street value of over $35,000.00, hand scales suitable for weighing and measuring quantities of marijuana, growing lamps, and a book describing how to grow marijuana.
fact @7775..7932 [supports] | For instance, the government introduced at trial the marked money used by the government informant to purchase marijuana from defendant on November 20, 1991.
fact @8246..8409 [supports] | The government also introduced defendant’s own admission that he gave the government informant a bag of marijuana and that he used to share marijuana with friends.
rule @5444..6133 | Moreover, the government could satisfy its burden of establishing that defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana with intent to distribute it through the inferences drawn from evidence such as the quantity of the marijuana involved, United States v. Faymore, 736 F.2d 328, 333 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 868, 105 S.Ct. 213, 83 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984), the estimated street value of the marijuana, id., the purity of the marijuana, United States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 58 (8th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949, 94 S.Ct. 3076, 41 L.Ed.2d 669 (1974), and other evidence which would support the inference that the marijuana was not intended to. be used for personal use.
held @7467..7774 | In satisfying its burden of establishing that defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed the marijuana with the intent to distribute it, the government introduced, through the testimony of several witnesses, evidence which inferred that the marijuana possessed by defendant was not for his personal use.
gloss Personal-use claim (single sale to an informant is not enough) rejected: 15 lb, $35,000 street value, scales, grow equipment, same-day sale and admitted sharing with friends.
element possession : not-reached
gloss Marijuana was seized in the defendant's own home; possession itself not disputed.
element knowledge : not-reached
element quantity : satisfied [law]
role comparator
variant mixture-or-substance/usable-plant-parts-with-detectable-drug-included
theory Sentencing Guidelines 2D1.1 drug weight ("mixture or substance" has the same meaning as in 841)
fact @28420..28610 [supports] | Defendant’s argument, however, overlooks the fact that the testimony at trial revealed that the stalks and seeds of a marijuana plant contain a detectable amount of the controlled substance.
rule @27287..27432 [quoted] | Mixture or substance does not include materials that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be used.
held @28611..28864 | Thus, in contrast to the examples cited in the commentary note, the stalks and seeds need not be separated before the controlled substance can be used. Accordingly, the stalks and seeds are to be used in calculating the weight of a controlled substance.
gloss Decided under the Guidelines, whose "mixture or substance" tracks 841(b); the statutory (b)(1)(D) tier itself (under 50 kg) was not in dispute. The rule line is Guidelines commentary quoted by the court, not the court's own formulation.
defense x-entrapment : not-reached
scope procedural
gloss Raised for the first time on appeal (informant sent into the home to buy); court declined to consider it.
misfit One count charges two alternative 841(a)(1) offences (distribution AND possession with intent); the court's single held sentence calls it "the drug possession offense" and upholds both prongs with overlapping evidence. The notation has no way to say two act-alternatives were charged conjunctively in one count.
misfit The quantity holding is about a Sentencing Guidelines provision (USSG 2D1.1) that borrows the statutory phrase "mixture or substance"; it is recorded under quantity but is not a holding on the 841(b) threshold. `role comparator` keeps it out of the instance count but runs backwards here (841 lends its term to the Guidelines; it is not the yardstick for another offence): still no value for "parallel instrument incorporating the statutory term".
misfit result is claimant-won for the 841 count (conviction affirmed), but all sentences were vacated and remanded because of a Guidelines double-counting error on a firearm count (2K2.4); the per-statute result hides that the 841 sentence was also vacated.
misfit Evidence-admissibility ruling ties items to elements (grow lights, cups, grower's manual held relevant to intent to distribute); relevance-of-evidence-to-element is a relation the fact lines only imply.
misfit Two firearm counts (924(c) "fortress" theory with 841 as the predicate drug trafficking crime; 922(g)(3)), double jeopardy, ineffective assistance, acceptance of responsibility, fine: other statutes/sentencing issues, omitted. The 924(c) holding depends on the 841 offence as predicate, a cross-statute dependency the notation cannot express.
misfit The entrapment argument was forfeited (first raised on appeal; the court declined to consider it). The honest v1 label is not-satisfied [waived], but a decided holding needs a quote and none was captured in v0 (quotes are frozen in this migration), so it stays not-reached under `scope procedural`, which does not distinguish "forfeited" from "unnecessary to decide".