Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-04-23
21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: comparator; posture: immigration removal (civil); BIA held a Georgia marijuana possession-with-intent conviction an INA "aggravated felony" because punishable as a felony under 841, CA5 denied review; certiorari by the noncitizen; 841 is the federal comparator under the categorical approach, not the statute of conviction; result: claimant-lost; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D),(b)(4)
Uncertainty
opinion: the IR appends the majority's footnotes directly after "It is so ordered." (@35692..42986); they are contiguous with the body, so one span.
opinion: the two paragraphs @48363..49871 sit between Thomas's "I respectfully dissent." and the heading "Justice ALITO, dissenting." but are Alito's footnotes 1-2 (the second answers the majority's n. 8); declared as a first span of `alito`. Annotator's attribution by content, not marked in the IR.
opinion: Alito's dissent is cut off by the 60000-char cap at the start of his Part III; the part where he states what he would do instead is not in the text.
Element intent-to-distribute: polarity: the plea fact is [supports] only as the record that identifies WHICH Georgia offense is compared, not as evidence of intent to distribute.
Element intent-to-distribute: other: the element id is forced: the Court compares the whole offense definition (possession + marijuana + intent) to 841(a)(1); the law file has `x-categorical-match`, which may be the better target, but the v1 id is kept.
Element quantity.marijuana-small-amount-no-remuneration: holding: direction is a convention (see first gloss): `satisfied` of the (b)(4) exception = "felony tier not necessarily established". The Court finds nothing about either tier; it announces how the tiers stand to each other (exclusive, no default) and holds the conviction ambiguous between them. A reader could equally want not-satisfied on a felony-punishment condition, or role rule-announced.
Element quantity.marijuana-small-amount-no-remuneration: polarity: the fact line is a proposition of Georgia law (the least conduct the State prosecutes), not a fact of this case; [supports] is relative to "(b)(4) conduct is within the minimum conduct".
Element quantity.marijuana-small-amount-no-remuneration: cites: no law-side construct to cite: 21usc841.law has no relation for the (b)(1)(D)/(b)(4) tiers and no protocol for the (b)(4) burden; its only constraint (apprend-alleyne-element-status) covers quantity / death-results / act, not (b)(4).
Element substance: holding: the Court never applies `substance` to anyone; it recites the elements of the offense being compared. `satisfied [conceded]` on a lone rule quote may overstate it (inert here: role comparator, so not an instance).
Misfit
`role comparator` marks that this is an INA aggravated-felony case (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B) -> 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(2) -> CSA felony) in which 841 is only the generic federal yardstick, but the role cannot name the borrowing law, and "claimant", "result" and satisfied/not-satisfied remain forced: result claimant-lost here means the Government failed to show the state conviction was categorically an 841 felony.
The categorical approach compares STATUTE to STATUTE (least conduct criminalized by the state law vs. the federal offense). The compared statute (Ga. Code 16-13-30(j)(1)) has no slot and is smuggled in as a `count` id, which it is not; "the minimum conduct the state prosecutes" is a `fact` line although it is a proposition of Georgia law. ([neutral] now carries the legally irrelevant 1.3 g fact.)
The holding is about the status of a penalty provision: (b)(4) is neither an offense element nor a mere mitigating sentencing factor for this purpose, and neither (b)(1)(D) nor (b)(4) is the default. The law file classes (b)(4) as an `exception` under a dotted sub-id of quantity, though it also turns on remuneration, which is not a quantity; there is no law-side relation "mutually exclusive tiers, no default" for `cites relation` to point at.
Burden allocation differs by forum (defendant bears the (b)(4) burden in a federal prosecution; in the categorical inquiry nobody "shows" the facts and a silent record runs against the Government). A law-side `protocol` stage fixes one burden-bearer, none is declared in 21usc841.law, and `cites stage` could not say "this protocol does not apply in this forum".
Two dissents (Thomas: any state felony punishable at all under the CSA qualifies; Alito: (b)(4) is a mitigating sentencing provision, 841(a) with the (b)(1)(D) maximum is the default) are now declared opinions, but no block is `by thomas` / `by alito`: the v1 quote set has no dissent quotes and is frozen. Alito's text is truncated at 60000 chars; the majority opinion and its footnotes are complete.
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
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
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)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D),(b)(4); party: Attorney General Holder / the Federal Government (respondent; the side asserting the § 841 felony match); Adrian Moncrieffe, noncitizen ordered removed (petitioner); count: the COMPARED offense, not a § 841 count: Georgia offense of conviction, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Ga. Code 16-13-30(j)(1); theory: categorical comparison in the abstract to 841(a)(1): first condition, the state offense necessarily proscribes CSA conduct; subject: party=Attorney General Holder / the Federal Government (respondent; the side asserting the § 841 felony match); Adrian Moncrieffe, noncitizen ordered removed (petitioner); count=the COMPARED offense, not a § 841 count: Georgia offense of conviction, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Ga. Code 16-13-30(j)(1); theory=categorical comparison in the abstract to 841(a)(1): first condition, the state offense necessarily proscribes CSA conduct Not a finding about what Moncrieffe did: the state offense's elements (possession, marijuana, intent to distribute) correspond to the 841(a)(1) offense. The actual facts are legally irrelevant under the categorical approach (hence the 1.3 g fact is [neutral]; v1 had to tag it cuts-against). | categorical-match/state-possession-with-intent-offense | Moncrieffe pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(1) (2007).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [3052:3184] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.In other words, to satisfy the categorical approach, a state drug offense must meet two conditions: It must "necessarily" proscribe conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA must "necessarily" prescribe felony punishment for that conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [9133:9383] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.There is no question that it is a federal crime to "possess with intent to ... distribute ... a controlled substance," 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one of which is marijuana, § 812(c). So far, the state and federal provisions correspond.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [10025:10256] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b. |
| Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D),(b)(4) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D),(b)(4) Subsumed in the categorical match above; not separately analysed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Misdemeanor treatment for distributing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration (§ 841(b)(4)) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D),(b)(4); party: Attorney General Holder / the Federal Government (respondent; the side asserting the § 841 felony match); Adrian Moncrieffe, noncitizen ordered removed (petitioner); count: the COMPARED offense, not a § 841 count: Georgia offense of conviction, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Ga. Code 16-13-30(j)(1); theory: categorical comparison: second condition, whether the conviction necessarily establishes the (b)(1)(D) felony tier rather than the (b)(4) misdemeanor tier; subject: party=Attorney General Holder / the Federal Government (respondent; the side asserting the § 841 felony match); Adrian Moncrieffe, noncitizen ordered removed (petitioner); count=the COMPARED offense, not a § 841 count: Georgia offense of conviction, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Ga. Code 16-13-30(j)(1); theory=categorical comparison: second condition, whether the conviction necessarily establishes the (b)(1)(D) felony tier rather than the (b)(4) misdemeanor tier Holding direction: the id is the (b)(4) exception, and `satisfied` means the conviction is treated as resting on (b)(4) conduct because it does not rule that conduct out; the felony tier is therefore NOT necessarily established (v0 recorded the same ruling as not-satisfied of the felony tier). Nothing is found about Moncrieffe's own conduct. 841(b)(4) (small amount of marijuana, no remuneration -> treated as simple possession) is read as one of two mutually exclusive punishment tiers, not a mitigating exception to a felony default. A state statute covering social sharing therefore is not categorically an 841 felony. "Small amount" itself is left undefined. In an actual federal prosecution the lower courts put the (b)(4) burden on the defendant; the Court holds that procedural overlay irrelevant here. | felony-vs-misdemeanor-tier/state-conviction-does-not-negate-b4-social-sharing | It is possible neither was; we know that Georgia prosecutes this offense when a defendant possesses only a small amount of marijuana, see, e.g., Taylor v. State, 260 Ga.App. 890, 581 S.E.2d 386, 388 (2003) (6.6 grams), and that "distribution" does not require remuneration, see, e.g., Hadden v. State, 181 Ga.App. 628, 628-629, 353 S.E.2d 532, 533-534 (1987).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [12485:12844] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.These dovetailing provisions create two mutually exclusive categories of punishment for CSA marijuana distribution offenses: one a felony, and one not.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [11581:11732] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.The only way to know whether a marijuana distribution offense is "punishable as a felony" under the CSA, Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625, is to know whether the conditions described in paragraph (4) are present or absent.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [11733:11960] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.The CSA's text makes neither provision the default. Rather, each is drafted to be exclusive of the other.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [16730:16835] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.In contrast, the fact of a conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, standing alone, does not reveal whether either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana was involved.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [12280:12484] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.Ambiguity on this point means that the conviction did not "necessarily" involve facts that correspond to an offense punishable as a felony under the CSA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [12938:13091] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b. |
| Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812 Schedules I-V) or counterfeit substance (§ 841(a)(2)) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D),(b)(4) | schedule-i/marijuana | (1) possession (2) of marijuana (a controlled substance), (3) with intent to distribute it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [14158:14249] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
(1) possession (2) of marijuana (a controlled substance), (3) with intent to distribute it.
Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
(1) possession (2) of marijuana (a controlled substance), (3) with intent to distribute it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [14158:14249] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.Includes controlled substance analogues treated as Schedule I under 21 U.S.C. § 813 when intended for human consumption (McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015)).
interpretation
These dovetailing provisions create two mutually exclusive categories of punishment for CSA marijuana distribution offenses: one a felony, and one not.
Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
These dovetailing provisions create two mutually exclusive categories of punishment for CSA marijuana distribution offenses: one a felony, and one not.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [11581:11732] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.Under Moncrieffe v. Holder (569 U.S. 184 (2013)), because § 841(b)(4) punishes social sharing of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration as a misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. § 844, a state marijuana distribution statute that reaches such conduct is not categorically an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
interpretation
The only way to know whether a marijuana distribution offense is "punishable as a felony" under the CSA, Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625, is to know whether the conditions described in paragraph (4) are present or absent.
Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
The only way to know whether a marijuana distribution offense is "punishable as a felony" under the CSA, Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625, is to know whether the conditions described in paragraph (4) are present or absent.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [11733:11960] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.Under Moncrieffe v. Holder (569 U.S. 184 (2013)), because § 841(b)(4) punishes social sharing of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration as a misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. § 844, a state marijuana distribution statute that reaches such conduct is not categorically an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
interpretation
The CSA's text makes neither provision the default. Rather, each is drafted to be exclusive of the other.
Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
The CSA's text makes neither provision the default. Rather, each is drafted to be exclusive of the other.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [16730:16835] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.Under Moncrieffe v. Holder (569 U.S. 184 (2013)), because § 841(b)(4) punishes social sharing of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration as a misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. § 844, a state marijuana distribution statute that reaches such conduct is not categorically an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
interpretation
In other words, to satisfy the categorical approach, a state drug offense must meet two conditions: It must "necessarily" proscribe conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA must "necessarily" prescribe felony punishment for that conduct.
Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In other words, to satisfy the categorical approach, a state drug offense must meet two conditions: It must "necessarily" proscribe conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA must "necessarily" prescribe felony punishment for that conduct.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [9133:9383] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.Governed by the notice and information procedures of 21 U.S.C. § 851 (and exempted from Apprendi's jury requirement under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)).
interpretation
In other words, to satisfy the categorical approach, a state drug offense must meet two conditions: It must "necessarily" proscribe conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA must "necessarily" prescribe felony punishment for that conduct.
Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In other words, to satisfy the categorical approach, a state drug offense must meet two conditions: It must "necessarily" proscribe conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA must "necessarily" prescribe felony punishment for that conduct.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [9133:9383] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.Frequently litigated when § 841 serves as the generic federal comparator in immigration (Moncrieffe), Armed Career Criminal Act, or Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §§ 2L1.2, 4B1.2) cases.