Source: cases/21usc841/f3d-275-146-us-v-soler.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_275/0146_01/index.html
By its terms, the statute of conviction applies whenever “death ... results” from the use of drugs supplied by the defendant. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). The fact that the statute does not speak to the defendant’s state of mind undercuts the appellant’s argument that we should impose some kind of foreseeability test.
Thus, when a defendant deals drugs and a user of those drugs dies as a result, section 841(b)(1)(C) apples without any independent proof that the death was a reasonably foreseeable event. Because the lower court correctly apprehended this point, we affirm the appellant’s conviction on count 1.
We think that a rational jury easily could conclude — as this jury did— that these activities came within the scope of a tacit agreement between the two co-conspirators.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/275/0146-01 name United States v. Soler cite 275 F.3d 146 (2002) court United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit date 2002-01-04 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_275/0146_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl sha1=3ee6be552fe1a9083fe353930408a561aecddc43 chars=27161 opinion maj : majority by Selya @0..22643, @24789..27161 controlling law 21usc841 (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) role applied posture criminal; jury convictions for distribution of heroin, death resulting (count 1), possession with intent to distribute (count 3) and § 846 conspiracy (count 5), plus two § 860 schoolyard counts; defendant argues § 841(b)(1)(C) requires that death be reasonably foreseeable and that the conspiracy evidence was insufficient; §§ 841/846 convictions affirmed, § 860 convictions reversed result claimant-won ? other: result is for the § 841 / § 846 counts (1, 3, 5), all affirmed; the reversal concerns only the § 860 schoolyard counts, which are another statute element death-results : satisfied [law] route foreseeability pattern buyer-snorted-heroin-believing-it-cocaine fact @2318..2432 [supports] | The men drove to Thompson’s apartment in Chicopee, where all three proceeded to snort heroin until they collapsed. fact @2641..2744 [supports] | The paramedics rushed all three men to the hospital and, soon thereafter, Thompson was pronounced dead. fact @1336..1451 [cuts-against] | Despite having consumed between ten and twenty beers apiece, the other three drove to Holyoke in search of cocaine. rule @11605..11921 | By its terms, the statute of conviction applies whenever “death ... results” from the use of drugs supplied by the defendant. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). The fact that the statute does not speak to the defendant’s state of mind undercuts the appellant’s argument that we should impose some kind of foreseeability test. held @13754..14048 | Thus, when a defendant deals drugs and a user of those drugs dies as a result, section 841(b)(1)(C) apples without any independent proof that the death was a reasonably foreseeable event. Because the lower court correctly apprehended this point, we affirm the appellant’s conviction on count 1. gloss Pure question of law: § 841(b)(1)(C) imposes strict liability for death resulting from the use of drugs the defendant himself distributed and contains no reasonable-foreseeability requirement. The defendant argued the death was unforeseeable because the victim snorted the heroin believing it was cocaine. The jury was instructed on but-for causation; causation itself was not contested on appeal. element act.distribute : satisfied [proved] decider jury review affirmed route sale pattern hand-to-hand-sale-of-stamped-bags-at-apartment-landing fact @1990..2123 [supports] | The appellant retreated inside and emerged with twenty plastic bags labeled “Me Salve.” He handed them to Dudek in exchange for cash. fact @24887..25064 [supports] | The appellant confessed at one point that he had been selling Me Salve heroin but that his supply of Me Salve had been exhausted on July 22, at which point he switched to Blunt. gloss Defendant sold twenty bags of heroin for $200 to buyers on the third-floor landing. The distribution itself was not contested on appeal. ? holding: not separately contested on appeal; recorded as the jury's finding left standing by the affirmance of count 1 element substance : satisfied [proved] decider jury review affirmed route _whole pattern heroin-sold-to-buyers-seeking-cocaine fact @2124..2186 [supports] | As matters turned out, the bags contained heroin, not cocaine. gloss Heroin; identity of the substance was not contested on appeal. ? holding: not separately contested on appeal; recorded as the jury's finding left standing by the affirmance element x-conspiracy-846 : satisfied [proved] route _whole pattern two-sellers-same-apartment-same-stamped-inventory-pooled-cash fact @8847..8977 [supports] | The two alleged coconspirators were operating out of the same “store” and selling identically marked bags from the same inventory. fact @9074..9255 [supports] | Finally, and perhaps most damagingly, the $20 bills tendered to the pregnant woman and to the appellant, respectively, were found commingled in a pile of cash stored with the drugs. fact @8978..9073 [supports] | Both of them were in the apartment at the time of the police raid — and both attempted to flee. rule @6355..6704 [quoted] | To prove the existence of a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, “the government must present clear evidence sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement to commit the substantive offense actually existed, and that the individual defendant knew of the agreement, had intent to agree, and had intent to commit the substantive offense.” held @10397..10566 | We think that a rational jury easily could conclude — as this jury did— that these activities came within the scope of a tacit agreement between the two co-conspirators. gloss Sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence (count 5) upheld: the defendant and an uncharged woman sold identically stamped heroin from the same apartment over two days and pooled the proceeds; "mere presence" and "single sale" arguments rejected. element prior-conviction : satisfied [conceded] route _whole pattern final-prior-drug-felony fact @5138..5349 [supports] | The court sentences were enhanced because the government, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, appropriately brought to the court’s attention the appellant’s previous convictions for unrelated drug-trafficking felonies. gloss Prior felony drug convictions established under 21 U.S.C. § 851. element knowledge : not-reached gloss Knowledge not contested on appeal.