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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| categorical-match/state-possession-with-intent-offense | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/569/0184-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — comparator/merits | |
| inferred/quantity-inconsistent-with-personal-use-plus-supplier-testimony | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — applied/hypothetical | |
| inferred/quantity-purity-scale-and-unaffordable-claimed-habit | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied | |
| inferred/quantity-value-scales-and-prior-sale | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 5 | 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; /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — rule-announced/merits; /f3d/235/0565-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — 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 | 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 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 | 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. |
| /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 | 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 variant | 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. |
| /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 | 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. |
| /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 | 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. |
| /f3d/235/0565-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/569/0184-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 | 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.
/f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
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.
/f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
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.
/f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
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.
/f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
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.