OR · 21usc841:act.dispense
Under United States v. Moore (423 U.S. 122 (1975)) and Ruan v. United States (597 U.S. 450 (2022)), a registered physician or practitioner violates § 841(a)(1) by prescribing/dispensing outside the usual course of professional practice, and once the defendant meets the burden of producing evidence of authorization, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.
Exact element source
to manufacture, distribute, or dispenseSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [151:190] (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; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · comparator/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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) | Dispensing by a practitioner outside the usual course of professional practice (Ruan v. United States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1) The court restates the § 802(10) definition (delivery by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including administering) but applies it to no conduct. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Under the federal scheme, any administering of a controlled substance that falls under the federal definition for “dispense” must be “by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.”
United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Under the federal scheme, any administering of a controlled substance that falls under the federal definition for “dispense” must be “by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_767.jsonl#/f3d/767/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [9699:9889] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7bf3b1d827eec8d7df6358d4749a34a273906690b6835d5cd27a842407c6624d.Under United States v. Moore (423 U.S. 122 (1975)) and Ruan v. United States (597 U.S. 450 (2022)), a registered physician or practitioner violates § 841(a)(1) by prescribing/dispensing outside the usual course of professional practice, and once the defendant meets the burden of producing evidence of authorization, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.