United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2018-12-13
21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: comparator; posture: immigration removal (civil); petition for review of a BIA order finding a lawful permanent resident removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) on Florida cocaine-possession convictions (Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a)); the federal CSA is the generic comparator under the (modified) categorical approach, § 841(a)(1) itself only a drafting analogy; result: claimant-won; claim: (a)(1)
Uncertainty
opinion: body ends at "PETITION DENIED." (@33411); the three paragraphs @33411..34273 are the opinion's own footnotes appended by the IR, contiguous, so one span.
role: § 841(a)(1) is cited once, as a drafting analogy (both statutes use the general term "controlled substance"); the generic federal yardstick actually compared is the § 802(6) definition via 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Kept as comparator rather than background because the court does decide a modified-categorical comparison of a state drug offense to the federal CSA definition.
other: result — "claimant" follows the Moncrieffe file's convention: the Government is the side asserting the match to the federal definition, and it prevailed (petition denied).
Element x-categorical-match: polarity: the facts are the state statute's breadth and the Shepard record identifying the offense of conviction, not conduct proving a § 841 element.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guillen v. U.S. Attorney Gen. — 910 F.3d 1174 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2018 (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
| Case | Death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance (§ 841(b)(1)(A)-(C) 20-year mandatory minimum) | Recidivist enhancement for prior conviction for a serious drug felony or serious violent felony (§ 841(b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 851) | Prohibited act under § 841(a)(1): manufacture, distribute, or dispense | Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes | Aiding and abetting route under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (cross-statute) | Categorical / modified categorical comparison of state drug offense to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (INA / ACCA / Guidelines) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guillen v. U.S. Attorney Gen. — 910 F.3d 1174 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2018 (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✓ satisfied · lawNot counted: comparator/merits |
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)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guillen v. U.S. Attorney Gen. — 910 F.3d 1174 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2018 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guillen v. U.S. Attorney Gen. — 910 F.3d 1174 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Categorical / modified categorical comparison of state drug offense to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (INA / ACCA / Guidelines) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1) Not a categorical match (Florida's schedules are broader, undisputed), but Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a) is divisible by the identity of the substance; under the modified categorical approach the conviction records show cocaine, a federally scheduled substance, so the convictions "relat[e] to a controlled substance" as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802. The comparison is to the § 802(6) definition, not to the elements of § 841(a)(1). | divisible-state-drug-schedule-matches-federal | The Florida controlled substance schedules undeniably are broader than the definition of "controlled substance" under federal law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/1174-01; Unicode character offsets [10858:10988] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0bd3b4a61335f502649efbd5ed1e34c70281500a9d907b47b404145b85f2c0fd.Each relevant criminal information specifically identified the substance involved in Guillen's offenses, and they report that Guillen was charged with "unlawfully and feloniously possess[ing] a controlled substance, to-wit: Cocaine."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/1174-01; Unicode character offsets [32735:32968] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0bd3b4a61335f502649efbd5ed1e34c70281500a9d907b47b404145b85f2c0fd.The modified categorical approach applies when a statute is "divisible," that is, "when it lists a number of alternative elements that effectively create several different crimes."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/1174-01; Unicode character offsets [13941:14121] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0bd3b4a61335f502649efbd5ed1e34c70281500a9d907b47b404145b85f2c0fd.We hold that the Board was correct in concluding that the statute is divisible and in finding that Guillen's convictions for possession of cocaine relate to a controlled substance as defined by federal law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/1174-01; Unicode character offsets [11216:11422] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0bd3b4a61335f502649efbd5ed1e34c70281500a9d907b47b404145b85f2c0fd. |