OR · 21usc841:x-conspiracy-846
Cross-statute route only; § 846 is distinct from aiding under § 2 and from substantive § 841(a)(1).
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.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; 2 observed cases | 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. | 2 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 2 | United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Daniels — 930 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Drug conspiracy route under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (cross-statute) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence (count 5) upheld: the defendant and an uncharged woman sold identically stamped heroin from the same apartment over two days and pooled the proceeds; "mere presence" and "single sale" arguments rejected. | two-sellers-same-apartment-same-stamped-inventory-pooled-cash | The two alleged coconspirators were operating out of the same “store” and selling identically marked bags from the same inventory.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [8847:8977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.Finally, and perhaps most damagingly, the $20 bills tendered to the pregnant woman and to the appellant, respectively, were found commingled in a pile of cash stored with the drugs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [9074:9255] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.Both of them were in the apartment at the time of the police raid — and both attempted to flee.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [8978:9073] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.To prove the existence of a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, “the government must present clear evidence sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement to commit the substantive offense actually existed, and that the individual defendant knew of the agreement, had intent to agree, and had intent to commit the substantive offense.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [6355:6704] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.We think that a rational jury easily could conclude — as this jury did— that these activities came within the scope of a tacit agreement between the two co-conspirators.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [10397:10566] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09. |
| United States v. Daniels — 930 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Drug conspiracy route under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (cross-statute) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(B); count: Conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine and 28 grams or more of crack cocaine (§ 846); subject: count=Conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine and 28 grams or more of crack cocaine (§ 846) Added at triage: sufficiency of the § 846 conspiracy count was contested and decided on the same footing as counts 2 and 3; co-conspirator testimony (transport, cash wrapping, fronted crack) defeated the "unwitting helpful friend" characterization. | helper-who-unloads-drugs-wraps-cash-and-sells-fronted-crack | James and Joppa Jackson testified that Daniels helped them transport cocaine from Houston to New Orleans.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [15722:15827] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fd747f81a01f21992700ce0494ad46a177d836c04c22f9d8b49accd18c94724a.James also testified that Daniels helped him wrap money in cellophane and load the cars with money "[a]ll the time."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [15914:16030] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fd747f81a01f21992700ce0494ad46a177d836c04c22f9d8b49accd18c94724a.Both James and Joppa Jackson testified that they fronted crack cocaine to Daniels so that Daniels could sell it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [16031:16143] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fd747f81a01f21992700ce0494ad46a177d836c04c22f9d8b49accd18c94724a.Per Supreme Court directive, "[a] conviction for a drug conspiracy requires proof of '(1) an agreement between two or more persons to violate the narcotics laws, (2) the defendant's knowledge of the agreement, and (3) the defendant's voluntary participation in the conspiracy.' "Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [14866:15145] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fd747f81a01f21992700ce0494ad46a177d836c04c22f9d8b49accd18c94724a.A rational trier of fact could easily find that Daniels was conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine and 28 grams or more of crack cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [16144:16331] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fd747f81a01f21992700ce0494ad46a177d836c04c22f9d8b49accd18c94724a. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
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.
United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md))
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.Cross-statute route only; § 846 is distinct from aiding under § 2 and from substantive § 841(a)(1).
interpretation
But an express, explicit agreement is normally not required, and a tacit, mutual agreement with common design, purpose, and understanding will usually suffice.
United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md))
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.Cross-statute route only; § 846 is distinct from aiding under § 2 and from substantive § 841(a)(1).
not-required
Proof of an overt act in furtherance of a 21 U.S.C. § 846 drug conspiracy (United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994))
No source quotation recorded.