DEFENSE · 21usc841:x-rule-of-lenity
Invoked when statutory text of § 841(b) is grievously ambiguous (declined in Chapman where "mixture or substance" was held unambiguous; reinforced in Burrage where "results from" was given its ordinary but-for meaning).
Exact element source
any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows:Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [489:574] (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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Rule of lenity in construing ambiguous penalty provisions of § 841(b) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; claim: (a),(b)(1)(B)(v) | no-grievous-ambiguity/plain-text-and-structure | There is no reason to resort to the rule of lenity in these circumstances.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [15501:15575] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
So long as it contains a detectable amount, the entire mixture or substance is to be weighed when calculating the sentence.
Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
So long as it contains a detectable amount, the entire mixture or substance is to be weighed when calculating the sentence.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [5764:5887] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.Invoked when statutory text of § 841(b) is grievously ambiguous (declined in Chapman where "mixture or substance" was held unambiguous; reinforced in Burrage where "results from" was given its ordinary but-for meaning).