OR · 21usc841:aiding
Alias retained for existing CASE vocabulary only; it is not a § 841 element. Do not conflate separate § 2 aiding-and-abetting and § 846 conspiracy routes.
Exact element source
any person who violates subsection (a) of this sectionSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [489:543] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebaba73bf6e21a591f44bf851f24a052a5687813c505030cd9483e17753e9420.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| conspiracy-846/acts-furthering-delivery-as-proof-of-knowing-participation | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — background/merits | |
| conspiracy-846/tacit-agreement-inferred-from-joint-transport | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — background/merits | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/427/0894-01 — United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2006 — background/merits; /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/427/0894-01 — United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2006 | Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A) Counts are framed under 18 U.S.C. § 2 and § 846 but accomplice/conspiracy liability is not analysed. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 | Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A) 18 U.S.C. § 2 is cited in Count 2, "probably superfluously"; no accomplice analysis. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 | Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes | satisfied Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Vera and Posada; count: 21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy count; subject: party=Vera and Posada; count=21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy count NOT aiding liability under § 841: this is the separate 21 U.S.C. § 846 conspiracy count, parked under `aiding` only because neov2/law/21usc841.law declares no § 846 id; `role background` keeps it out of the § 841 instances. Separate offence under 21 U.S.C. 846 (v0 parked it under `aiding`); kept as a background block, not as accomplice liability for the 841 counts. It has no held line of its own: the conspiracy is upheld in the same sentences that decide knowledge for each defendant. | conspiracy-846/acts-furthering-delivery-as-proof-of-knowing-participation | In the case at bar, however, Vera and Posada performed numerous acts in furtherance of the purpose of the conspiracy such as loading the boxes of quaaludes into the van and driving the van.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [45683:45872] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.To support a conviction of conspiracy, the government must prove that an agreement existed between two or more persons to commit a crime and that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined or participated in the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [15302:15529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.A defendant’s knowing participation in a conspiracy may be established through proof of surrounding circumstances such as acts committed by the defendant which furthered the purpose of the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [16539:16739] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 | Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes | satisfied Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Prieto-Tejas (with Dusal); count: 21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy count; subject: party=Prieto-Tejas (with Dusal); count=21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy count NOT aiding liability under § 841: this is the separate 21 U.S.C. § 846 conspiracy count, parked under `aiding` only because neov2/law/21usc841.law declares no § 846 id; `role background` keeps it out of the § 841 instances. Separate offence under 21 U.S.C. 846 (v0 parked it under `aiding`); kept as a background block, not as aiding liability under 841. | conspiracy-846/tacit-agreement-inferred-from-joint-transport | They entered into an agreement to travel together to San Antonio. Prieto-Tejas purchased a car and Dusal agreed to drive.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [12094:12215] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Furthermore, both men were wearing a large amount of gold jewelry, although neither had a significant source of income.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [13012:13131] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.To obtain a conviction under section 846, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the existence of an agreement to violate the drug laws and each coconspirator’s (2) knowledge of the agreement, (3) intent to join it, and (4) participation in the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [10035:10309] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.But an express, explicit agreement is normally not required, and a tacit, mutual agreement with common design, purpose, and understanding will usually suffice.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [10592:10751] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.The two men clearly acted in concert in transporting a significant amount of cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [13417:13502] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to infer a tacit agreement between Dusal and Prieto-Tejas and their knowledge, intent to join, and participation in the agreement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [13132:13318] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2. |