EXCEPTION · 21usc841:quantity.marijuana-small-amount-no-remuneration
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.
Exact element source
Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as provided in section 844 of this title and section 3607 of title 18.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [14995:15254] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebaba73bf6e21a591f44bf851f24a052a5687813c505030cd9483e17753e9420.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _comparator accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is used as a yardstick for another statute or question, not applied to this case's own conduct. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples: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) · comparator/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| 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) | 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. |
Court interpretations
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.