OR · 21usc841:act.distribute
Because 21 U.S.C. § 802(8),(11) defines "distribute" as "deliver" and "deliver" as "actual, constructive, or attempted transfer", a completed § 841(a)(1) distribution includes an attempted transfer (United States v. Suncar, 142 F.4th 259 (3d Cir. 2025)).
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; 2 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (2). Excluded context examples: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 Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — 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) · applied/merits · not counted |
| delivery-or-transfer provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the defendant delivered or transferred the drug, actually or constructively, without regard to sale. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 1 | United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · 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) · applied/procedural · not counted |
| sale provisional; 6 observed cases | Whether the defendant sold the drug. | 4 Satisfied 4; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 4 | 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) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Daniels — 930 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Seals — 915 F.3d 1203 (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 United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: proved; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A); count: Count 2; theory: delivery to the carrier / attempted transfer to the addressee inside the forum district (further ground for venue, partly in a footnote); subject: count=Count 2; theory=delivery to the carrier / attempted transfer to the addressee inside the forum district (further ground for venue, partly in a footnote) Alternative to the possession theory, again decided only to locate the offence for venue: handing drugs to an unwitting carrier is itself a "delivery" (no scienter needed for the recipient), and the attempted transfer to the addressee counts as distribution under § 802(8); no sale or exchange required. | delivery/shipment-by-commercial-courier-intercepted-before-addressee | On April 27-29, 2014, the agents intercepted a series of text messages between Tiangco and Free-hauf that indicated she was sending a couple of ounces of methamphetamine to Freehauf in New Jersey, via a shipment to her brother in Long Branch, New Jersey.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [17953:18207] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.Because the package was intercepted, it never reached its addressee, Alain Ti-angco, or Freehauf.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [20131:20228] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.Rather, Ti-angco committed the drugs to a courier service, an intermediary she chose for the very purpose of having the package delivered to Long Branch, New Jersey (although it only got as far as the UPS facility in Tinton Falls, New Jersey).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [29915:30158] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.To “distribute” a drug is to “deliver” possession of it to another.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [21608:21675] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.The statutory definition of "delivery,” however, encompasses an "attempted” transfer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [44088:44173] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.A delivery from Tiangco to the New Jersey UPS personnel occurred in New Jersey. An attempted delivery to Tiangco’s brother occurred in New Jersey.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [30424:30570] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Vera and Posada; count: 841(a)(1) distribution count; subject: party=Vera and Posada; count=841(a)(1) distribution count The court states no separate test for "distribute"; the distribution convictions stand or fall with knowledge. Neither appellant personally handed drugs to the buyer; they loaded part of the load that a co-conspirator delivered. | delivery/staged-wholesale-delivery-to-undercover-agent | Hassan would deliver the quaalude tablets in the van to a prearranged location where a person designated by Fiano could inspect the tablets.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [2174:2314] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Agent Gardner entered the back of the van, opened two of the boxes and examined the tablets taken from the plastic bags inside the boxes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [6042:6179] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Viewing the evidence as a whole in the light most favorable to the government, we cannot say that a reasonable jury must necessarily have a reasonable doubt as to Vera’s guilt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [22460:22636] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| 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) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D) Distribution = delivery (21 U.S.C. 802(11)); payment is not required, so the defendant's own account that he merely "gave" a small bag to the informant is itself an admission of distribution. About a quarter ounce. | controlled-buy-by-informant | This witness testified that during a noncustodial interview defendant admitted to her that he had sold marijuana to a person on the day the search warrant was executed and that in the past he had shared marijuana with friénds.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [6397:6623] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.In that sworn statement, defendant stated that he had given marijuana to a person who later'was identified as a government informant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [6808:6941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.The witness then testified that he recovered from the informant a bag of marijuana and a portion of the marked funds not used in the purchase after the informant left the defendant’s home.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [7278:7466] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.In order to establish the knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance, the government needed only.to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [5072:5271] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.It was irrelevant for the government to also show, that defendant was paid for the delivery.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [5293:5385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.The government submitted ample evidence for a rational fact finder to have found the essential elements of the drug possession offense charged in count 1 of the indictment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [4731:4903] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267. |
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Defendant sold twenty bags of heroin for $200 to buyers on the third-floor landing. The distribution itself was not contested on appeal. | hand-to-hand-sale-of-stamped-bags-at-apartment-landing | The appellant retreated inside and emerged with twenty plastic bags labeled “Me Salve.” He handed them to Dudek in exchange for cash.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [1990:2123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.The appellant confessed at one point that he had been selling Me Salve heroin but that his supply of Me Salve had been exhausted on July 22, at which point he switched to Blunt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [24887:25064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09. |
| United States v. Seals — 915 F.3d 1203 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Jury finding only: the sale itself was not contested on appeal; the court's analysis is confined to causation. | forty-dollars-heroin-and-fentanyl-sold-to-user | On November 3, 2016, Cordero Seals sold $ 40 worth of a substance consisting of heroin and fentanyl to J.V.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1203-01; Unicode character offsets [972:1079] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0c0f3dbba850770c03e9c113be73b3bfeebc1cb7411c0dd6cf11ae4545181b38. |
| United States v. Daniels — 930 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(B); count: Distribution of crack cocaine on May 4, 2015; subject: count=Distribution of crack cocaine on May 4, 2015 Hand-to-hand sale of crack cocaine outside house captured on surveillance video, with recovered cocaine and cash in residence, supported distribution conviction. | hand-to-hand-sale-captured-on-video | The jury saw video footage of the transaction. Officers apprehended the woman shortly after and saw her throw a piece of crack cocaine out her car window.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [16629:16783] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fd747f81a01f21992700ce0494ad46a177d836c04c22f9d8b49accd18c94724a.And when officers searched Daniels's house later, they found cocaine residue and $2,000 in cash.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [16784:16880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fd747f81a01f21992700ce0494ad46a177d836c04c22f9d8b49accd18c94724a.A rational trier of fact could easily find that Daniels knowingly and intentionally distributed crack cocaine. There was no error.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [16881:17011] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fd747f81a01f21992700ce0494ad46a177d836c04c22f9d8b49accd18c94724a. |
| United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) The 841 conviction rests on the guilty plea and is not challenged; it is the backdrop of the sentencing appeal. | controlled-buy-by-informant | Twice, Suncar sold a confidential informant oxycodone pills, some of which contained a detectable amount of fentanyl.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [2811:2928] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.Suncar ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [3051:3178] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e. |
| 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) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C); theory: federal "distribute" restated as the analogy for reading Pennsylvania "delivery"; subject: theory=federal "distribute" restated as the analogy for reading Pennsylvania "delivery" Applied to no conduct in this case. The rule line (restating Groves, 4th Cir. 2023) is the opinion's only construction of federal "distribute": an attempted transfer is a completed distribution, not an inchoate attempt. | Unspecified route | because under federal law the term “distribute” means “to deliver,” and the term “to deliver” includes “actual, constructive, or attempted transfer[s],” an “attempted transfer” is an actual delivery, not an attempted one.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [21003:21224] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e. |
| Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a),(b)(1)(B)(v) Convictions for selling the LSD were not challenged; only the sentence was. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Burrage v. United States — 571 U.S. 204 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(C) The underlying (a)(1) distribution was not contested; it survives as a lesser included offense with the default (b)(1)(C) sentence. | hand-to-hand-sale-to-user | Count 2 alleged that Burrage unlawfully distributed heroin on April 14, 2010, and that "death ... resulted from the use of th[at] substance"-thus subjecting Burrage to the 20-year mandatory minimum of § 841(b)(1)(C).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_571.jsonl#/us/571/0204-01; Unicode character offsets [1760:1976] (end exclusive); SHA-256 79b67b6f900bb4e1d188103a922f7b491948af8153ad62495453588c50be54b3.Thus, the crime charged in count 2 of Burrage's superseding indictment has two principal elements: (i) knowing or intentional distribution of heroin, § 841(a)(1), and (ii) death caused by ("resulting from") the use of that drug, § 841(b)(1)(C).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_571.jsonl#/us/571/0204-01; Unicode character offsets [7420:7664] (end exclusive); SHA-256 79b67b6f900bb4e1d188103a922f7b491948af8153ad62495453588c50be54b3.It is undisputed that Burrage is guilty of that lesser included offense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_571.jsonl#/us/571/0204-01; Unicode character offsets [27784:27856] (end exclusive); SHA-256 79b67b6f900bb4e1d188103a922f7b491948af8153ad62495453588c50be54b3. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
To “distribute” a drug is to “deliver” possession of it to another.
United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
To “distribute” a drug is to “deliver” possession of it to another.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [21608:21675] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.Because 21 U.S.C. § 802(8),(11) defines "distribute" as "deliver" and "deliver" as "actual, constructive, or attempted transfer", a completed § 841(a)(1) distribution includes an attempted transfer (United States v. Suncar, 142 F.4th 259 (3d Cir. 2025)).
interpretation
The statutory definition of "delivery,” however, encompasses an "attempted” transfer.
United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
The statutory definition of "delivery,” however, encompasses an "attempted” transfer.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [44088:44173] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.Because 21 U.S.C. § 802(8),(11) defines "distribute" as "deliver" and "deliver" as "actual, constructive, or attempted transfer", a completed § 841(a)(1) distribution includes an attempted transfer (United States v. Suncar, 142 F.4th 259 (3d Cir. 2025)).
interpretation
because under federal law the term “distribute” means “to deliver,” and the term “to deliver” includes “actual, constructive, or attempted transfer[s],” an “attempted transfer” is an actual delivery, not an attempted one.
United States v. Rashun Suncar — 142 F.4th 259 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
because under federal law the term “distribute” means “to deliver,” and the term “to deliver” includes “actual, constructive, or attempted transfer[s],” an “attempted transfer” is an actual delivery, not an attempted one.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/259; Unicode character offsets [21003:21224] (end exclusive); SHA-256 334f66557f769d0766ebfd4e174c7501ca28424a1c56e12881d1271af5081f1e.Because 21 U.S.C. § 802(8),(11) defines "distribute" as "deliver" and "deliver" as "actual, constructive, or attempted transfer", a completed § 841(a)(1) distribution includes an attempted transfer (United States v. Suncar, 142 F.4th 259 (3d Cir. 2025)).
interpretation
In order to establish the knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance, the government needed only.to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance.
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)
In order to establish the knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance, the government needed only.to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [5072:5271] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.Because 21 U.S.C. § 802(8),(11) defines "distribute" as "deliver" and "deliver" as "actual, constructive, or attempted transfer", a completed § 841(a)(1) distribution includes an attempted transfer (United States v. Suncar, 142 F.4th 259 (3d Cir. 2025)).
interpretation
It was irrelevant for the government to also show, that defendant was paid for the delivery.
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)
It was irrelevant for the government to also show, that defendant was paid for the delivery.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [5293:5385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.Because 21 U.S.C. § 802(8),(11) defines "distribute" as "deliver" and "deliver" as "actual, constructive, or attempted transfer", a completed § 841(a)(1) distribution includes an attempted transfer (United States v. Suncar, 142 F.4th 259 (3d Cir. 2025)).
not-required
Exchange of money / sale / remuneration for a distribution offense under § 841(a)(1) (United States v. Vincent, 20 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1994))
No source quotation recorded.