United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019-05-30
21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal sentencing appeal; mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 851 based on two prior "felony drug offense" convictions; defendant challenges whether a California Penal Code § 4573.6 (inmate drug possession) conviction qualifies under the categorical approach; sentence vacated and remanded (convictions affirmed in a separate memorandum disposition); result: claimant-lost; claim: (b)(1)(A)
Uncertainty
opinion: the three paragraphs @10538..12100 are the opinion's own footnotes appended by the IR; one span.
other: result is for the only § 841 question this opinion decides (the Government's recidivist enhancement fails); the underlying convictions were affirmed in a separate, unpublished disposition not in this record.
Element prior-conviction: route: no menu route for "state predicate tested by the categorical approach / divisibility"; `_whole` used.
Element prior-conviction: polarity: the "facts" are the identity and legal breadth of the prior offense, which is all the categorical approach looks at.
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 18
| Case | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | Controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812 Schedules I-V) or counterfeit substance (§ 841(a)(2)) | Authorization exception ("Except as authorized by this subchapter") for registered practitioners/handlers | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Graves — 925 F.3d 1036 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 18
Elements 13–18 of 18
| Case | Drug conspiracy route under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (cross-statute) | Fifth Amendment Due Process / Equal Protection challenge to carrier-medium weight sentencing (Chapman) | Affirmative defense of entrapment (government inducement + lack of predisposition) | Rule of lenity in construing ambiguous penalty provisions of § 841(b) | Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness challenge to "mixture or substance" or analogue provisions | Continuing-offense venue for § 841(a)(1) possession with intent to distribute / distribution (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Graves — 925 F.3d 1036 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Graves — 925 F.3d 1036 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Recidivist enhancement for prior conviction for a serious drug felony or serious violent felony (§ 841(b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 851) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (b)(1)(A) Sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A) vacated: California Penal Code § 4573.6 is overbroad relative to the federal schedules (undisputed) and indivisible as to the type of controlled substance (plain text, People v. Rouser, contrast with the Health and Safety Code), so a conviction under it cannot be a predicate "felony drug offense" for the mandatory-life enhancement. | overbroad-state-statute-disqualifies-enhancement | There is no dispute that section 4573.6 criminalizes controlled substances under California law that are not regulated under federal law, so the statute is overbroad.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1036-01; Unicode character offsets [3314:3480] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8fea2cc8195165ae25b66d849c46c6042c1ea956474ddcd07c1716c47c8d7992.Second, a California state court has explicitly held that contemporaneous possession of two or more discrete controlled substances at the same location constitutes one offense under section 4573.6.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1036-01; Unicode character offsets [6632:6829] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8fea2cc8195165ae25b66d849c46c6042c1ea956474ddcd07c1716c47c8d7992."[I]f a statute is both overbroad and indivisible, a prior conviction under that statute will never qualify as a predicate drug trafficking offense ...."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1036-01; Unicode character offsets [3608:3761] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8fea2cc8195165ae25b66d849c46c6042c1ea956474ddcd07c1716c47c8d7992.We conclude, therefore, that California Penal Code § 4573.6 is not a divisible statute and therefore cannot be a categorical "felony drug offense" triggering a "mandatory term of life imprisonment" under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2016).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1036-01; Unicode character offsets [9106:9342] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8fea2cc8195165ae25b66d849c46c6042c1ea956474ddcd07c1716c47c8d7992. |