United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014-09-15
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)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 | 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.”
/f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
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.”
/f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
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.”
/f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
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.”
/f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
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.”
/f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
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.