United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014-09-15
21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: comparator; posture: criminal; sentencing appeal after guilty plea to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326); defendant challenges 16-level "drug trafficking offense" enhancement and "aggravated felony" finding based on a prior Texas possession-with-intent-to-deliver conviction; § 841(a)(1) is only the federal comparator; result: not-decided; claim: (a)(1)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
`role comparator` now says the case is not an instance of § 841 (nobody is charged under it), but not WHAT is measured against it. § 841(a)(1) (via the Guidelines' "drug trafficking offense" definition and the INA "aggravated felony" chain 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) -> 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) -> CSA) serves as the generic federal offence against which a STATE statute's elements are compared. The compared law and that chain live only in `count`/`theory`/gloss text, and the comparison itself is still an ad-hoc x-categorical-match element.
Under the categorical approach the defendant's actual conduct is legally irrelevant, so there are no real-world `fact` lines; the "facts" are the record of conviction and the content of state law, and their polarity means "towards / away from a categorical match", not conduct. The holding compares element sets (Texas deliver = distribute|dispense|administer vs federal distribute|dispense), an element-to-element relation across two laws.
`result` has no natural value: the prosecution won the sentencing issue, but the claim "under THIS statute" does not exist; not-decided is used.
Burden allocation is the crux (defendant must point to an actual state case showing a "realistic probability" of non-generic application); burden-shifting cannot be expressed.
The direct object of interpretation is U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 commentary and 21 U.S.C. § 802(10) (definition of "dispense"), not § 841's text; the opinion says only in a footnote that § 841(a)(1)'s wording "tracks" the Guidelines definition.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · 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)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Dispensing by a practitioner outside the usual course of professional practice (Ruan v. United States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1) The court restates the § 802(10) definition (delivery by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including administering) but applies it to no conduct. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1) No § 841 charge; the scope of federal "distribute or dispense" is construed only as the generic yardstick for the state offence (see x-categorical-match). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.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) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.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) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | 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); count: prior Texas conviction, Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) possession with intent to deliver; theory: categorical comparison to the federal distribute/dispense definition; subject: count=prior Texas conviction, Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) possession with intent to deliver; theory=categorical comparison to the federal distribute/dispense definition Texas "deliver" includes "administer" by a practitioner's agent in the practitioner's presence without a "lawful order", which is theoretically broader than federal "dispense"; but with no Texas prosecution on an administering theory, and 4-200 g of cocaine being implausible as medical administration, the state offence is treated as a match. The aggravated-felony limb runs through 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) to "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act", i.e. § 841(a)(1). | state-predicate-matches-federal-offence/overbreadth-only-theoretical-no-realistic-probability | It identified a 2011 Texas conviction for possession with intent to deliver between four and 200 grams of cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [772:886] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Accordingly, one can possess with the intent to deliver by possessing with the intent to either distribute, dispense, or administer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [8226:8358] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Like the defendants in Ruiz-Sanchez and Villedar-Mejia, Teran-Salas does not identify any case that applied § 481.112(a) in such a manner.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [16218:16356] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Under the federal scheme, any administering of a controlled substance that falls under the federal definition for “dispense” must be “by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [9699:9889] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This wording tracks the relevant parts of the guidelines definition for “drug trafficking offense.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [18669:19020] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.It is not a realistic probability that someone would engage in medical care or research that involved administering cocaine in such amounts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [16953:17093] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.We hold that the district court was correct in determining that Teran-Salas’s Texas conviction was both a drug trafficking offense and an aggravated felony.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [17534:17690] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This wording tracks the relevant parts of the guidelines definition for “drug trafficking offense.”
United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This wording tracks the relevant parts of the guidelines definition for “drug trafficking offense.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [18669:19020] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Branches into `act.manufacture`, `act.distribute`, and `act.dispense` (or the possession-with-intent alternative via `possession` + `intent-to-distribute`).
interpretation
Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This wording tracks the relevant parts of the guidelines definition for “drug trafficking offense.”
United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This wording tracks the relevant parts of the guidelines definition for “drug trafficking offense.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [18669:19020] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Includes cultivation/harvesting (21 U.S.C. § 802(22)) and chemical synthesis or conversion.
interpretation
Under the federal scheme, any administering of a controlled substance that falls under the federal definition for “dispense” must be “by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.”
United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Under the federal scheme, any administering of a controlled substance that falls under the federal definition for “dispense” must be “by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [9699:9889] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Under United States v. Moore (423 U.S. 122 (1975)) and Ruan v. United States (597 U.S. 450 (2022)), a registered physician or practitioner violates § 841(a)(1) by prescribing/dispensing outside the usual course of professional practice, and once the defendant meets the burden of producing evidence of authorization, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.
interpretation
Under the federal scheme, any administering of a controlled substance that falls under the federal definition for “dispense” must be “by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.”
United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Under the federal scheme, any administering of a controlled substance that falls under the federal definition for “dispense” must be “by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [9699:9889] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Under 21 U.S.C. § 885(a)(1), the government need not negative any statutory exemption or exception in the indictment or until the defendant satisfies the burden of going forward with evidence of registration/authorization; once produced by a registrant, Ruan (597 U.S. 450 (2022)) requires the government to prove knowing/intentional lack of authorization beyond a reasonable doubt.
interpretation
Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This wording tracks the relevant parts of the guidelines definition for “drug trafficking offense.”
United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This wording tracks the relevant parts of the guidelines definition for “drug trafficking offense.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [18669:19020] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.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.