AND · 21usc841:intent-to-distribute
Routinely inferred from distribution-level quantity, purity, street value, packaging materials, scales, ledgers, firearms, or absence of personal-use paraphernalia.
Exact element source
with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispenseSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [203:254] (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; 6 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 6 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (6). 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. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted United States v. Quintanar — 150 F.3d 902 (1998) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · not counted |
| _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 |
| inferred-from-quantity-and-circumstances provisional; 10 observed cases | Whether intent to distribute is inferred from quantity, purity, paraphernalia, cash, prior sales or testimony. | 9 Satisfied 9; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 8 | United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Griffin — 150 F.3d 778 (1998) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos — 175 F.3d 838 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · 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) · applied/hypothetical · not counted United States v. Solis — 915 F.3d 1172 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/lower-court · 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) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A) | 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) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / hypothetical basis: proved; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A); count: 2009 Missouri traffic-stop seizure (uncharged episode; intrinsic evidence of the Count 1 846 conspiracy, not Count 2); subject: count=2009 Missouri traffic-stop seizure (uncharged episode; intrinsic evidence of the Count 1 846 conspiracy, not Count 2) Arises from an evidentiary objection (prosecutor's reference to "possess with intent to distribute" for an episode that ended in a state simple-possession plea). For Count 2 itself the judge says only that intent evidence "was more than adequate" and sets it aside. | inferred/quantity-inconsistent-with-personal-use-plus-supplier-testimony | They heard evidence that a typical user would consume a gram or less, and that it would take one person perhaps a year to consume a pound.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [12515:12653] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.They heard testimony that Ms. Tiangco was then a regular distributor of supplier Javier Diaz’s product in pound quantities, of which this was one.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [12684:12830] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.They heard her own post-arrest statement admitting that she took (stole, she said) the package because she wanted to make some money to redeem herself in her mother’s eyes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [12954:13126] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.So intent to distribute would be a permissible, indeed nearly inescapable, inference.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [13158:13243] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1) Recited as an element but not disputed (388,000 tablets in a negotiated 400,000-tablet sale to an undercover agent). | Unspecified route | In order to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must prove three essential elements: (1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [16881:17116] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Prieto-Tejas; count: substantive 841(a)(1) possession-with-intent count; subject: party=Prieto-Tejas; count=substantive 841(a)(1) possession-with-intent count About 30 g (roughly one ounce) of high-purity cocaine: not a quantity that alone compels the inference. Personal-use defense defeated by the defendant's own numbers (claimed habit cost more than his income), plus a cocaine-dusted scale and purity suited to cutting. | inferred/quantity-purity-scale-and-unaffordable-claimed-habit | The bags contained 27.79 grams of 82 percent pure cocaine and 2.89 grams of 73 percent pure cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [6630:6730] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.The evidence suggested that this cocaine was of a purity usually diluted for distribution.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [6839:6929] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.The scale had traces of cocaine in the weighing pans and the DEA agent testified that scales of this type are commonly used by those who sell cocaine, but not often by purchasers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [9212:9391] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Prieto-Tejas testified that he was addicted to cocaine and that at the time of his arrest he had been using up to three or four grams a day for several months.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [7439:7598] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Construed most favorably to him, his testimony would indicate that his total income was at the most $2,000 per month.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [8243:8360] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Intent to distribute a controlled substance may generally be inferred solely from possession of a large amount of the substance.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [5865:5993] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.The purity and value of the substance also are relevant to the possessor’s intent to distribute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [6177:6273] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Therefore, a reasonable factfinder could infer either that he did not use a large amount and intended to sell a portion of the cocaine, or that he did consume large amounts and also sold cocaine to supplement his income in support of his expensive habit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [8838:9092] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.The presence of the scale in addition to the quality and quantity of the cocaine and Prieto-Tejas’s testimony concerning his cocaine use support a finding of his intent to distribute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [9392:9575] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2. |
| United States v. Griffin — 150 F.3d 778 (1998) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) Ten compressed packages of cocaine, a digital gram scale and a loaded pistol. Intent to distribute was not separately challenged on appeal. | ten-compressed-packages-scale-and-loaded-pistol | Detective Bobko, armed with the search warrant, opened the box and found ten plastic wrapped compressed packages filled with what appeared to be cocaine, as well as a cardboard box with a small electronic digital gram scale.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0778-01; Unicode character offsets [7669:7893] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c12bcba9bd82c213622c83568cb4d96b4026be74acb6bbc0a0083f4083d2318d.They also uncovered a briefcase on the floor of the front passenger side of Griffin’s Yukon which contained a loaded .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, a cellular phone, and two safety deposit box keys.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0778-01; Unicode character offsets [7894:8096] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c12bcba9bd82c213622c83568cb4d96b4026be74acb6bbc0a0083f4083d2318d.The court also considered the evidence of Griffin’s reactions to Detective Bobko’s inquiry about drugs and that a loaded gun and scale were found after the police searched Griffin’s vehicle, which are the usual tools of a drug dealer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0778-01; Unicode character offsets [22910:23144] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c12bcba9bd82c213622c83568cb4d96b4026be74acb6bbc0a0083f4083d2318d. |
| United States v. Quintanar — 150 F.3d 902 (1998) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998 — not reached (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1) Vacated with the failure of proof on possession. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos — 175 F.3d 838 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) 4,467 grams of 92% pure cocaine valued at up to $450,000 on the street. Intent to distribute was not contested on appeal (only knowing possession was). | ten-bundles-92-percent-pure-cocaine-and-courier-fee-cash | A search of the hidden compartment produced ten bundles of ninety-two percent pure cocaine, weighing 4,467 grams and ranging in value between $80,000 (wholesale) and $450,000 (street value).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [2311:2501] (end exclusive); SHA-256 705ae18823815868add1d2ac7b39bfffb0da1c0a7caf210a46cfee8dbcbe0001.An experienced Drug Enforcement Administration agent later testified $2,500 is a reasonable courier’s fee for transporting cocaine from New Mexico to Denver, Colorado, and that couriers are usually paid in cash denominations of $20 or less.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [2689:2929] (end exclusive); SHA-256 705ae18823815868add1d2ac7b39bfffb0da1c0a7caf210a46cfee8dbcbe0001. |
| United States v. Jenkins — 175 F.3d 1208 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); count: Possession with intent to distribute cocaine base; subject: count=Possession with intent to distribute cocaine base On appeal the defendant admitted that the quantity of cocaine base seized "would be more than adequate to sustain a conviction for possession with intent to distribute" and disputed only knowing possession. | conceded-on-quantity-plus-controlled-buy | The informant utilized by police for a controlled buy also told officers that she had purchased crack cocaine from an individual named Loc, which is Defendant’s nickname.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [21382:21552] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8. |
| United States v. Jenkins — 175 F.3d 1208 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); count: Possession with intent to distribute marijuana; subject: count=Possession with intent to distribute marijuana A buyer's statement that he bought marijuana at the residence, distribution quantities, and cash with marked buy money supported intent to distribute; the defendant argued the marijuana was scattered about the residence and showed only personal use, and that the co-defendant was convicted only of simple possession on the same evidence. | buyer-statement-quantity-and-cash | Officer Easter testified that he saw some individuals approach Ms. Payne’s residence and that they left the residence shortly thereafter.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [23841:23978] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.He testified further that, in response to his subsequent questioning, one of those individuals told Officer Easter that he had purchased marijuana at the residence in question.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [23979:24155] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.The record also reveals that sufficient quantities of marijuana were located in the residence for the jury to infer that it was used for distribution rather than for personal use.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [24420:24599] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.This evidence reasonably supports the jury’s conclusion that Defendant knowingly possessed marijuana with intent to distribute it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [25041:25171] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8. |
| United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D) Personal-use claim (single sale to an informant is not enough) rejected: 15 lb, $35,000 street value, scales, grow equipment, same-day sale and admitted sharing with friends. | inferred/quantity-value-scales-and-prior-sale | Moreover, government witnesses testified that in the search of defendant’s house they seized over 15 pounds of high-quality marijuana, which had a street value of over $35,000.00, hand scales suitable for weighing and measuring quantities of marijuana, growing lamps, and a book describing how to grow marijuana.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [7933:8245] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.For instance, the government introduced at trial the marked money used by the government informant to purchase marijuana from defendant on November 20, 1991.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [7775:7932] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.The government also introduced defendant’s own admission that he gave the government informant a bag of marijuana and that he used to share marijuana with friends.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [8246:8409] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.Moreover, the government could satisfy its burden of establishing that defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana with intent to distribute it through the inferences drawn from evidence such as the quantity of the marijuana involved, United States v. Faymore, 736 F.2d 328, 333 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 868, 105 S.Ct. 213, 83 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984), the estimated street value of the marijuana, id., the purity of the marijuana, United States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 58 (8th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949, 94 S.Ct. 3076, 41 L.Ed.2d 669 (1974), and other evidence which would support the inference that the marijuana was not intended to. be used for personal use.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [5444:6133] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.In satisfying its burden of establishing that defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed the marijuana with the intent to distribute it, the government introduced, through the testimony of several witnesses, evidence which inferred that the marijuana possessed by defendant was not for his personal use.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [7467:7774] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267. |
| United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A),(b)(1)(B) Found by the jury on count eight but not challenged on appeal; the hand-to-hand contacts outside the apartment are discussed only for Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Kitchen — 57 F.3d 516 (1995) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed; 21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1) Not contested on appeal; the court treats evidence of intent to purchase as irrelevant to possession. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Orozco — 700 F.3d 1176 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(iii),(b)(1)(B)(ii) 2.8 kilograms of powder cocaine, 55 grams of cocaine base, and $1.4 million in cash established intent to distribute. | sixty-two-bundles-powder-and-base-cocaine | A. later, more thorough search revealed 62 cellophane-wrapped bundles containing approximately $1.4 million (primarily in $20 bills), 2.8 kilograms of powder cocaine, and slightly over 55 grams of cocaine base.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [2621:2831] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221.“A large quantity of drugs ... is sufficient evidence of ... intent to distribute.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [7949:8032] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221.Finally, the large quantity of drugs and money are sufficient to support an inference of intent to distribute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [7802:7912] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221. |
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1) No § 841 charge; the scope of federal "distribute or dispense" is construed only as the generic yardstick for the state offence (see x-categorical-match). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Solis — 915 F.3d 1172 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A) Jury finding only: on appeal Solis attacked knowing possession, not intent to distribute, and the court does not discuss it. | two-and-half-kilograms-methamphetamine-in-car-seats | Using the cordless drill and the Phillips bit, he disassembled the car seats and found $19,000 in rubber-banded cash and 2.5 kilograms of methamphetamine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1172-01; Unicode character offsets [3022:3176] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6728c81148db0694782b8aad773a56b2cf5cfbdc284dbfb893aec52d848ffcf5.After the trooper found a cordless screwdriver with a single Phillips bit and a suitcase containing Ziploc bags, he examined the car seats and found them abnormally heavy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1172-01; Unicode character offsets [2850:3021] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6728c81148db0694782b8aad773a56b2cf5cfbdc284dbfb893aec52d848ffcf5. |
| U.S. v. Druger — 920 F.3d 567 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) Sufficiency upheld against a personal-use theory: 36.02 grams (testified to be a distribution amount), digital scales, baggies, a firearm, and a customer's testimony of continuing purchases. The personal-use claim is the defendant's contention, not a fact the court credited. | scales-baggies-and-customer-testimony | During a sweep of the house officers discovered 36.02 grams of methamphetamine inside the toilet and related plumbing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [1248:1366] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed.The officers also found digital scales, baggies, drug pipes, and other paraphernalia, along with a firearm in the bedroom.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [1367:1489] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed.The Government presented testimony demonstrating 36.02 grams is a distribution amount.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [8163:8249] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed.In addition, a witness testified she purchased methamphetamine from Druger beginning in 2015 and she continued to do so after the execution of the federal warrant in December of 2015.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [8792:8975] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed.Conviction under this section requires the Government to "prove that the defendant (1) knowingly possessed the methamphetamine; and (2) had intent to distribute it."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [7265:7430] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed.All told, this evidence gave the jury a basis to believe Druger intended to distribute the methamphetamine found in his house instead of merely using it himself.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [8442:8603] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed.Thus, we conclude the evidence provided a sound basis for the district court to conclude that a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Druger was guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [9276:9516] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed. |
| United States v. Mazzulla — 932 F.3d 1091 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md); 21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A),(b)(1)(B) Sufficiency upheld on every count in one sentence; the court's actual discussion of intent to distribute is in its approval of the refusal to give a simple-possession instruction on count II (49 grams was more than a personal-use quantity, distribution paraphernalia, non-accomplice testimony of sales), reviewed for abuse of discretion. | baggies-scale-and-witness-testimony | The officers searched the motor home and found approximately 49 grams of methamphetamine, a pistol, and some drug paraphernalia.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [4358:4486] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8.During the interview, Mazzulla admitted that over the past two years he sold up to two ounces of methamphetamine per week to his employees.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [2040:2179] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8.During the course of trial, several other witnesses testified about their drug-related interactions with Mazzulla, most of whom had bought various quantities of methamphetamine from him.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [11062:11248] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8.During the meeting, Mazzulla admitted to possession of a personal quantity of methamphetamine and consented to a search of his vehicle.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [1679:1814] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8.Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, we are satisfied that the evidence supports the verdict on every count.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [28848:28985] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8. |
| 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) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | 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 in the abstract to 841(a)(1): first condition, the state offense necessarily proscribes CSA conduct; 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 in the abstract to 841(a)(1): first condition, the state offense necessarily proscribes CSA conduct Not a finding about what Moncrieffe did: the state offense's elements (possession, marijuana, intent to distribute) correspond to the 841(a)(1) offense. The actual facts are legally irrelevant under the categorical approach (hence the 1.3 g fact is [neutral]; v1 had to tag it cuts-against). | categorical-match/state-possession-with-intent-offense | Moncrieffe pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(1) (2007).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [3052:3184] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.In other words, to satisfy the categorical approach, a state drug offense must meet two conditions: It must "necessarily" proscribe conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA must "necessarily" prescribe felony punishment for that conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [9133:9383] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b.There is no question that it is a federal crime to "possess with intent to ... distribute ... a controlled substance," 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one of which is marijuana, § 812(c). So far, the state and federal provisions correspond.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_569.jsonl#/us/569/0184-01; Unicode character offsets [10025:10256] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83d74d149cfb2b77011039cc127c0214d4fc14fb10708357fa68e3629127e81b. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In order to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must prove three essential elements: (1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute it.
United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
In order to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must prove three essential elements: (1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [16881:17116] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Routinely inferred from distribution-level quantity, purity, street value, packaging materials, scales, ledgers, firearms, or absence of personal-use paraphernalia.
interpretation
Intent to distribute a controlled substance may generally be inferred solely from possession of a large amount of the substance.
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))
Intent to distribute a controlled substance may generally be inferred solely from possession of a large amount of the substance.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [5865:5993] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Routinely inferred from distribution-level quantity, purity, street value, packaging materials, scales, ledgers, firearms, or absence of personal-use paraphernalia.
interpretation
The purity and value of the substance also are relevant to the possessor’s intent to distribute.
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))
The purity and value of the substance also are relevant to the possessor’s intent to distribute.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [6177:6273] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Routinely inferred from distribution-level quantity, purity, street value, packaging materials, scales, ledgers, firearms, or absence of personal-use paraphernalia.
interpretation
Moreover, the government could satisfy its burden of establishing that defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana with intent to distribute it through the inferences drawn from evidence such as the quantity of the marijuana involved, United States v. Faymore, 736 F.2d 328, 333 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 868, 105 S.Ct. 213, 83 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984), the estimated street value of the marijuana, id., the purity of the marijuana, United States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 58 (8th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949, 94 S.Ct. 3076, 41 L.Ed.2d 669 (1974), and other evidence which would support the inference that the marijuana was not intended to. be used for personal use.
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)
Moreover, the government could satisfy its burden of establishing that defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana with intent to distribute it through the inferences drawn from evidence such as the quantity of the marijuana involved, United States v. Faymore, 736 F.2d 328, 333 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 868, 105 S.Ct. 213, 83 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984), the estimated street value of the marijuana, id., the purity of the marijuana, United States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 58 (8th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949, 94 S.Ct. 3076, 41 L.Ed.2d 669 (1974), and other evidence which would support the inference that the marijuana was not intended to. be used for personal use.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [5444:6133] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.Routinely inferred from distribution-level quantity, purity, street value, packaging materials, scales, ledgers, firearms, or absence of personal-use paraphernalia.