United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000-09-11
21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; direct appeal from resentencing after jury conviction for marijuana manufacture, possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy; defendant challenges (plain-error review) the ten-year sentence imposed under § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii) on a judge's preponderance finding of drug quantity; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing within the five-year maximum supported by the verdict; result: claimant-lost; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(vii)
Uncertainty
other: result is recorded for the only § 841 question on appeal (the § 841(b)(1)(A) quantity tier, lost by the government); the § 841(a)(1) convictions themselves were not under review and stand
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. Nordby — 225 F.3d 1053 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | · 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Nordby — 225 F.3d 1053 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · 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)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Nordby — 225 F.3d 1053 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 (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. Nordby — 225 F.3d 1053 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Manufacture (production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a controlled substance) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(vii) The jury's manufacture verdict (a "measurable or detectable amount") is reported, not reviewed: this appeal is from resentencing only. The defendant never conceded responsibility for the charged August-September 1993 grow. | outdoor-marijuana-gardens-on-defendants-parcels | On two of the parcels owned by Kayle Nordby, police found thirty-one outdoor marijuana gardens containing 2,308 marijuana plants as well as an indoor growing shed that had been used to grow marijuana.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [1656:1856] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce.In fact, he had been vacationing for much of the time that the marijuana crop had been in the ground, and only returned to the area five days before being arrested.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [17317:17481] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce. |
| United States v. Nordby — 225 F.3d 1053 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not reached (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(vii) Not contested on appeal. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Nordby — 225 F.3d 1053 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000 — not · law (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(vii) Sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii) vacated on plain-error review: under Apprendi, drug quantity that raises the statutory maximum from five years to life must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not found by the sentencing judge by a preponderance. The error was prejudicial because the defendant contested responsibility for the 1993 plants. | judge-found-1000-plants-by-preponderance-jury-told-quantity-irrelevant | Instead, the jury was instructed that “the government is not required to prove the amount or quantity of marijuana manufactured as long as the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants manufactured a measurable or detectable amount of marijuana.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [2618:2882] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce.First, Nordby’s jury made no finding regarding the specific amount of marijuana that Nordby manufactured, possessed with intent to distribute, or conspired to possess with intent to distribute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [10108:10301] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce.The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Nordby was responsible for 1000 or more marijuana plants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [4073:4186] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce.Although it was uncontested at trial that over 2000 marijuana plants were found growing on land owned by Nordby, Nordby consistently maintained that he was not responsible for growing these plants, or for conspiring to do so at the time charged in the indictment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [17012:17275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce.We hold that the amount of drugs for which a defendant is sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) is such a fact, and that our existing precedent to the contrary is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with Apprendi.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [433:658] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce.Thus, under Apprendi the “prescribed statutory maximum” for a single conviction under § 841 for an undetermined amount of marijuana is five years.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [11924:12070] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce.We conclude that the district court erred by sentencing Nordby under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 for manufacturing, possessing with intent to distribute and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 1000 or more marijuana plants without submitting the question of marijuana quantity to the jury and without a finding that the marijuana quantity had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_225.jsonl#/f3d/225/1053-01; Unicode character offsets [12286:12676] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f790c6cc24480108402b3e14c6e103bf4a2636b2c70379bda9af4e594db23ce. |