OR · 21usc841:quantity
PARTIAL_THRESHOLD_TABLE: this entry anchors the § 841(b)(1) drug-specific threshold matrix without pretending that one heroin threshold quote enumerates every listed substance and tier. Under Chapman v. United States (500 U.S. 453 (1991)), "mixture or substance" includes the carrier medium in which the drug is marketed/consumed, but not unusable waste water or packaging containers that must be separated before use.
Exact element source
1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin;Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [658:744] (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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 4 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (4). Excluded context examples:United States v. Person — 427 F. Supp. 2d 894 (2006) · United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2006 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · not counted United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · comparator/merits · not counted |
| _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:United States v. Orozco — 700 F.3d 1176 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| jury-finding-of-threshold provisional; 4 observed cases | Whether the penalty-triggering quantity was found by the jury beyond reasonable doubt, and the consequence when it was not (Apprendi, Alleyne). | 5 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 3; excluded context 1 | 4 | United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted 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)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — not · no-evidence (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted |
| mixture-or-substance provisional; 2 observed cases | What is weighed as a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount". | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 1 | Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · comparator/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Person — 427 F. Supp. 2d 894 (2006) · United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2006 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A) (b)(1)(A) is charged; quantity is never discussed (affidavit mentions about one ounce of crack recovered in the January search). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A); count: Count 2, (b)(1)(A) 50 g methamphetamine tier; subject: count=Count 2, (b)(1)(A) 50 g methamphetamine tier Jury finding by special interrogatory; the roughly 55 g parcel is the only Count 2 quantity evidence the opinion recites. The finding is not challenged and the judge states no holding on it, hence no held line. | threshold-found-by-jury/special-interrogatory | In answers to special interrogatories, the jury found that each count involved 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, as charged.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [2174:2301] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.Inside was approximately 55 grams of nearly pure methamphetamine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [19762:19827] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592. |
| United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A); count: Count 1 (21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy-wide quantity, 50 g tier); subject: count=Count 1 (21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy-wide quantity, 50 g tier) The held sentence concerns only the conspiracy-wide quantity on the 846 count (the 841(b)(1)(A) threshold reached through 846), so it is background for 841. The same special-interrogatory finding is quoted in the Count 2 block. Weight of the 2009 Missouri seizure (about a pound, per supplier's testimony and a photograph) did not need to be found. | threshold-found-by-jury/special-interrogatory | There was overwhelming evidentiary support for the jury’s answer of “yes” to that question, and Ms. Tiangco does not directly challenge it in this motion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [15889:16043] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592. |
| United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1) Pre-1986-amendment sentencing; quantity matters only as evidence of intent. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D); theory: Sentencing Guidelines 2D1.1 drug weight ("mixture or substance" has the same meaning as in 841); subject: theory=Sentencing Guidelines 2D1.1 drug weight ("mixture or substance" has the same meaning as in 841) Decided under the Guidelines, whose "mixture or substance" tracks 841(b); the statutory (b)(1)(D) tier itself (under 50 kg) was not in dispute. The rule line is Guidelines commentary quoted by the court, not the court's own formulation. | usable-plant-parts-with-detectable-drug-included | Defendant’s argument, however, overlooks the fact that the testimony at trial revealed that the stalks and seeds of a marijuana plant contain a detectable amount of the controlled substance.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [28420:28610] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.Mixture or substance does not include materials that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be used.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [27287:27432] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.Thus, in contrast to the examples cited in the commentary note, the stalks and seeds need not be separated before the controlled substance can be used. Accordingly, the stalks and seeds are to be used in calculating the weight of a controlled substance.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [28611:28864] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267. |
| 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. |
| United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — not · no-evidence (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A),(b)(1)(B); count: count eight, (b)(1)(A) 50-gram cocaine-base tier; subject: count=count eight, (b)(1)(A) 50-gram cocaine-base tier Post-Apprendi, quantity is treated as an element for the aggravated tiers. "Approximately two ounces" (56.7 g) in the indictment plus a general admission of guilt did not establish >50 g when the chemist weighed 44.6 g; no jury finding on quantity. | threshold-not-found-by-jury/lab-weight-below-charged-tier | In this case, count eight of the indictment alleges that, on July 10, 1998, Mi. Hishaw “did knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute approximately tivo (2) ounces of cocaine base (crack), a Schedule II controlled substance.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [32715:32960] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.The total weight of the substances identified by the chemist was thus 44.6 grams — less than the fifty-gram amount required to trigger the ten-years-to-life sentencing provisions of § 841(b)(1)(A).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [35844:36041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.Mr. Hishaw responded, “Yes.... That’s mine.... I accept my responsibility for that.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [36374:36458] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.We agree with the reasoning of these decisions and conclude that, under § 841(b)(1), the quantity of drugs is a fact that may “increase[ ] the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” and therefore “must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [32397:32683] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.In light of the indictment’s ambiguous allegation as to the quantity of cocaine base involved, and because of Apprendi, we conclude that the failure to require specific findings regarding the quantity of cocaine constitutes a “plain or obvious” error.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [33719:33970] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.Because the government’s evidence established possession of only 44.6 grams, Mr. Hishaw’s “accept[ance] [of] responsibility” for the cocaine base alleged in count eight, cannot be viewed as an admission that he possessed more than that amount.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [36825:37068] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3. |
| United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A),(b)(1)(B); count: count eight, (b)(1)(B) 5-gram cocaine-base tier; subject: count=count eight, (b)(1)(B) 5-gram cocaine-base tier The Apprendi error is harmless under plain-error prong three: the 360-month sentence is within the 5-40 year range for the 44.6 g actually proved; judge-found relevant conduct (1857 g, from hung counts) may set the guideline sentence inside that range. No jury actually found >5 g; the court relies on uncontested trial evidence plus the admission. | lower-tier-supported/sentence-within-proved-quantity-maximum | According to the chemist, each of the seven baggies contained a caked substance that tested positive for cocaine base and that weighed the following amounts: 5.5 grams, 6.4 grams, 6.5 grams, 6.5 grams, 6.5 grams, 6.5 grams, and 6.7 grams.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [35605:35843] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.In our view, as long as the defendant’s sentence falls within the maximum established by statute, Apprendi does not foreclose consideration of drug quantities beyond the offense of conviction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [39370:39562] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.Thus, Mr. Hishaw’s 360 month sentence on his § 841 conviction falls within that statutory maximum.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [37317:37415] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.Accordingly, we conclude that in light of his admission that he possessed cocaine base and the fact that his sentence fell within the statutory maximum sentence for the drug quantity proved by the government at trial, Mr. Hishaw was not prejudiced by the failure to submit the question of drug quantity to the jury.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [41993:42308] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3. |
| United States v. Strayhorn — 250 F.3d 462 (2001) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001 — 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: (b)(1)(B),(b)(1)(D) Sentence vacated under Apprendi: a judicial finding of 100+ kilograms of marijuana by a preponderance, moving the defendant from a 10-year maximum under § 841(b)(1)(D) to a 10-year mandatory minimum under § 841(b)(1)(B), is an element that must be charged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt even after a guilty plea. The quantity was never found to the required standard; on remand the district court may find it beyond a reasonable doubt or resentence under (b)(1)(D). | judge-found-quantity-raises-max-to-mandatory-minimum-after-guilty-plea | The court noted that Phillips had testified that he purchased or was “fronted” approximately 260 pounds of marijuana from Strayhorn, in addition to the 88 pounds which were actually seized.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_250.jsonl#/f3d/250/0462-01; Unicode character offsets [8179:8368] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4e36f0efbac9dfc678e7da85ac0d7813765b7710d429828e0c4a9b5487c5aa94.While acknowledging his guilt for the amount of marijuana seized from his home and from co-defendant Phillips, he explicitly denied responsibility for any additional marijuana for which the government sought to hold him responsible.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_250.jsonl#/f3d/250/0462-01; Unicode character offsets [4041:4273] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4e36f0efbac9dfc678e7da85ac0d7813765b7710d429828e0c4a9b5487c5aa94.Strayhorn never pleaded guilty to the elements of the offense under § 841(b)(1)(B) nor were they charged or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_250.jsonl#/f3d/250/0462-01; Unicode character offsets [22262:22403] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4e36f0efbac9dfc678e7da85ac0d7813765b7710d429828e0c4a9b5487c5aa94.Already, we have held, pursuant to Apprendi, that the government must name in the indictment the quantity of drugs for which it seeks to hold the defendant responsible under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and that the determination of drug quantity under § 841(b) must, when it subjects the defendant to an enhanced sentence, be considered an element of the offense rather than a sentencing factor.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_250.jsonl#/f3d/250/0462-01; Unicode character offsets [15360:15747] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4e36f0efbac9dfc678e7da85ac0d7813765b7710d429828e0c4a9b5487c5aa94.Because the district court’s factual finding of drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence transformed the crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty (conspiracy to possess less than fifty kilograms of marijuana punishable by a maximum ten-year sentence) into a greater crime for the purposes of sentencing (conspiracy to possess over 100 kilograms of marijuana punishable by a mandatory minimum ten-year sentence), the district court’s finding violated Strayhorn’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_250.jsonl#/f3d/250/0462-01; Unicode character offsets [25068:25574] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4e36f0efbac9dfc678e7da85ac0d7813765b7710d429828e0c4a9b5487c5aa94. |
| United States v. Orozco — 700 F.3d 1176 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012 — not reached (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_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(iii),(b)(1)(B)(ii); count: Count 2, possession with intent to deliver cocaine base, § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii); subject: count=Count 2, possession with intent to deliver cocaine base, § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) The amount (slightly over 55 g of cocaine base) was not disputed; what is open is which threshold table governs the § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) ten-year minimum after the Fair Sentencing Act and Dorsey. The court did not decide it and remanded. | cocaine-base-55-grams-between-old-50g-and-new-280g-threshold | The Act, however, raised the threshold quantity of cocaine base for a ten-year statutory minimum sentence from 50 grams to 280 grams.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [8585:8718] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221.Given the drug quantities at issue, it appears Orozco may be entitled to the benefit of the Act.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [9611:9707] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a),(b)(1)(B)(v); count: (b)(1)(B)(v) 5-year mandatory-minimum tier (1 gram or more of LSD mixture); subject: count=(b)(1)(B)(v) 5-year mandatory-minimum tier (1 gram or more of LSD mixture) Gross "street weight" of drug plus ingestible carrier it is diffused in counts; pure-drug weight is irrelevant except for PCP/methamphetamine. Containers and packaging (vial, car) are excluded because not mixed with the drug. | carrier-medium-weight-included | Petitioners Richard L. Chapman, John M. Schoenecker, and Patrick Brumm were convicted of selling 10 sheets (1,000 doses) of blotter paper containing LSD, in violation of § 841(a).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [480:659] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.The ten sheets of blotter paper carrying the 1,000 doses sold by petitioners weighed 5.7 grams; the LSD by itself weighed only about 50 milligrams, not even close to the one gram necessary to trigger the 5-year mandatory minimum of §841(b)(1)(B)(v).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [4253:4502] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.The LSD crystals are inside of the paper, so that they are commingled with it, but the LSD does not chemically combine with the paper.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [12276:12410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.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.The term does not include LSD in a bot-tie, or LSD in a car, because the drug is easily distinguished from, and separated from, such a “container.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [13259:13406] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.We think that the blotter paper used in this case, and blotter paper customarily used to distribute LSD, is a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount” of LSD.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [11045:11216] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.We hold that the statute requires the weight of the carrier medium to be included when determining the appropriate sentence for trafficking in LSD, and that this construction is neither a violation of due process nor unconstitutionally vague.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [23201:23443] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c. |
| Burrage v. United States — 571 U.S. 204 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) One gram; (b)(1)(C) is the no-threshold tier, so quantity was not in issue. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
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.PARTIAL_THRESHOLD_TABLE: this entry anchors the § 841(b)(1) drug-specific threshold matrix without pretending that one heroin threshold quote enumerates every listed substance and tier. Under Chapman v. United States (500 U.S. 453 (1991)), "mixture or substance" includes the carrier medium in which the drug is marketed/consumed, but not unusable waste water or packaging containers that must be separated before use.
interpretation
The term does not include LSD in a bot-tie, or LSD in a car, because the drug is easily distinguished from, and separated from, such a “container.”
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)
The term does not include LSD in a bot-tie, or LSD in a car, because the drug is easily distinguished from, and separated from, such a “container.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [13259:13406] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.PARTIAL_THRESHOLD_TABLE: this entry anchors the § 841(b)(1) drug-specific threshold matrix without pretending that one heroin threshold quote enumerates every listed substance and tier. Under Chapman v. United States (500 U.S. 453 (1991)), "mixture or substance" includes the carrier medium in which the drug is marketed/consumed, but not unusable waste water or packaging containers that must be separated before use.
interpretation
Mixture or substance does not include materials that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be used.
United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
Mixture or substance does not include materials that must be separated from the controlled substance before the controlled substance can be used.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [27287:27432] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.PARTIAL_THRESHOLD_TABLE: this entry anchors the § 841(b)(1) drug-specific threshold matrix without pretending that one heroin threshold quote enumerates every listed substance and tier. Under Chapman v. United States (500 U.S. 453 (1991)), "mixture or substance" includes the carrier medium in which the drug is marketed/consumed, but not unusable waste water or packaging containers that must be separated before use.
interpretation
We agree with the reasoning of these decisions and conclude that, under § 841(b)(1), the quantity of drugs is a fact that may “increase[ ] the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” and therefore “must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
We agree with the reasoning of these decisions and conclude that, under § 841(b)(1), the quantity of drugs is a fact that may “increase[ ] the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” and therefore “must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [32397:32683] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.PARTIAL_THRESHOLD_TABLE: this entry anchors the § 841(b)(1) drug-specific threshold matrix without pretending that one heroin threshold quote enumerates every listed substance and tier. Under Chapman v. United States (500 U.S. 453 (1991)), "mixture or substance" includes the carrier medium in which the drug is marketed/consumed, but not unusable waste water or packaging containers that must be separated before use.
interpretation
In our view, as long as the defendant’s sentence falls within the maximum established by statute, Apprendi does not foreclose consideration of drug quantities beyond the offense of conviction.
United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In our view, as long as the defendant’s sentence falls within the maximum established by statute, Apprendi does not foreclose consideration of drug quantities beyond the offense of conviction.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [39370:39562] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.PARTIAL_THRESHOLD_TABLE: this entry anchors the § 841(b)(1) drug-specific threshold matrix without pretending that one heroin threshold quote enumerates every listed substance and tier. Under Chapman v. United States (500 U.S. 453 (1991)), "mixture or substance" includes the carrier medium in which the drug is marketed/consumed, but not unusable waste water or packaging containers that must be separated before use.