Source: cases/21usc841/us-500-453-chapman-v-united-states.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_500/0453_01/index.html
So long as it contains a detectable amount, the entire mixture or substance is to be weighed when calculating the sentence.
The term does not include LSD in a bot-tie, or LSD in a car, because the drug is easily distinguished from, and separated from, such a “container.”
We think that the blotter paper used in this case, and blotter paper customarily used to distribute LSD, is a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount” of LSD.
We hold that the statute requires the weight of the carrier medium to be included when determining the appropriate sentence for trafficking in LSD, and that this construction is neither a violation of due process nor unconstitutionally vague.
By measuring the quantity of the drugs according to the “street weight” of the drugs in the diluted form in which they are sold, rather than according to the net weight of the active component, the statute and the Sentencing Guidelines increase the penalty for persons who possess large quantities of drugs, regardless of their purity.
We find that Congress had a rational basis for its choice of penalties for LSD distribution.
First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by §841, so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case.
The fact that there may be plausible arguments against describing blotter paper impregnated with LSD as a “mixture or substance” containing LSD does not mean that the statute is vague.
There is no reason to resort to the rule of lenity in these circumstances.
casedsl 1 case /us/500/0453-01 name Chapman v. United States cite 500 U.S. 453 (1991) court Supreme Court of the United States date 1991-05-30 url catalog/cases/us/volume_500/0453_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl sha1=1c768e0429bdc74033e6777ae224b03e2c5ce920 chars=46978 law 21usc841 (a),(b)(1)(B)(v) role applied posture criminal; sentencing after conviction for LSD distribution, affirmed by CA7 en banc; certiorari by defendants on whether carrier weight counts toward the mandatory-minimum threshold result claimant-won element quantity : satisfied [law] variant mixture-or-substance/carrier-medium-weight-included count (b)(1)(B)(v) 5-year mandatory-minimum tier (1 gram or more of LSD mixture) fact @480..659 [supports] | Petitioners Richard L. Chapman, John M. Schoenecker, and Patrick Brumm were convicted of selling 10 sheets (1,000 doses) of blotter paper containing LSD, in violation of § 841(a). fact @4253..4502 [supports] | The ten sheets of blotter paper carrying the 1,000 doses sold by petitioners weighed 5.7 grams; the LSD by itself weighed only about 50 milligrams, not even close to the one gram necessary to trigger the 5-year mandatory minimum of §841(b)(1)(B)(v). fact @12276..12410 [supports] | The LSD crystals are inside of the paper, so that they are commingled with it, but the LSD does not chemically combine with the paper. rule @5764..5887 | So long as it contains a detectable amount, the entire mixture or substance is to be weighed when calculating the sentence. rule @13259..13406 | The term does not include LSD in a bot-tie, or LSD in a car, because the drug is easily distinguished from, and separated from, such a “container.” held @11045..11216 | We think that the blotter paper used in this case, and blotter paper customarily used to distribute LSD, is a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount” of LSD. held @23201..23443 | We hold that the statute requires the weight of the carrier medium to be included when determining the appropriate sentence for trafficking in LSD, and that this construction is neither a violation of due process nor unconstitutionally vague. gloss Gross "street weight" of drug plus ingestible carrier it is diffused in counts; pure-drug weight is irrelevant except for PCP/methamphetamine. Containers and packaging (vial, car) are excluded because not mixed with the drug. defense x-due-process-arbitrary-sentence : not-satisfied [law] scope procedural variant rational-basis/street-weight-penalty-scheme fact @1325..1498 [supports] | Petitioners appealed, claiming that the blotter paper is only a carrier medium, and that its weight should not be included in the weight of the drug for sentencing purposes. rule @18564..18899 | By measuring the quantity of the drugs according to the “street weight” of the drugs in the diluted form in which they are sold, rather than according to the net weight of the active component, the statute and the Sentencing Guidelines increase the penalty for persons who possess large quantities of drugs, regardless of their purity. held @18209..18301 | We find that Congress had a rational basis for its choice of penalties for LSD distribution. gloss Fifth Amendment due-process/equal-protection facial challenge to weighing the carrier; hypotheticals about very heavy carriers do not help defendants who used the standard one. defense x-vagueness : not-satisfied [law] scope procedural variant as-applied/sentencing-term-not-vague rule @22168..22313 | First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by §841, so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case. held @22364..22548 | The fact that there may be plausible arguments against describing blotter paper impregnated with LSD as a “mixture or substance” containing LSD does not mean that the statute is vague. defense x-rule-of-lenity : not-satisfied [law] scope procedural variant no-grievous-ambiguity/plain-text-and-structure held @15501..15575 | There is no reason to resort to the rule of lenity in these circumstances. element act.distribute : not-reached gloss Convictions for selling the LSD were not challenged; only the sentence was. element knowledge : not-reached element substance : not-reached misfit The opinion is purely about a (b) penalty threshold; guilt under (a) is not in issue. "quantity : satisfied [law]" stretches the element model: the fact (5.7 g gross / 50 mg net) was undisputed and the only question was which measurement the statute means. A measurement-rule construct (how the quantity is computed) would fit better than satisfied/not-satisfied. One fact line states both weights and so carries both polarities (gross supports the threshold, net cuts against it); it is tagged [supports]. misfit Constitutional challenges to the statute (due process/equal protection, vagueness) and interpretive canons (lenity, constitutional avoidance) are recorded as x- defenses under `scope procedural`, which keeps them out of the instance count; but they are attacks on the law or arguments about its construction, not affirmative defenses of a party, and there is still no "validity of the law" or "canon rejected" slot. The only `fact` under the due-process block is the petitioners' contention, to which polarity does not really apply. misfit Dissent (Stevens, joined by Marshall) would exclude the carrier weight; v1 could hold it in a `scope dissent` block, but none is recorded because the v0->v1 migration adds no quotes. misfit The same holding governs the Sentencing Guidelines base offense level (USSG 2D1.1), a different legal instrument that tracks the statutory phrase; no way to note a parallel non-statutory rule. misfit IR text flattens a table in a footnote (disparate sentences per carrier) to nothing; footnotes are appended without anchors.