A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
- OR Prohibited act under § 841(a)(1): manufacture, distribute, or dispense
Branches into `act.manufacture`, `act.distribute`, and `act.dispense` (or the possession-with-intent alternative via `possession` + `intent-to-distribute`).
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Dispensing by a practitioner outside the usual course of professional practice (Ruan v. United States)
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — comparator/merits
- OR Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance)
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)).
3 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) delivery/shipment-by-commercial-courier-intercepted-before-addressee 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 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/procedural
delivery/staged-wholesale-delivery-to-undercover-agent 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied sale/controlled-buy-by-informant 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 11 /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — satisfied Excluded context examples: /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — background/merits
sale/hand-to-hand-sale-to-user 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/571/0204-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — comparator/merits; /us/500/0453-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — applied/merits
- OR Manufacture (production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a controlled substance)
Includes cultivation/harvesting (21 U.S.C. § 802(22)) and chemical synthesis or conversion.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Dispensing by a practitioner outside the usual course of professional practice (Ruan v. United States)
- OR Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes
Alias retained for existing CASE vocabulary only; it is not a § 841 element. Do not conflate separate § 2 aiding-and-abetting and § 846 conspiracy routes.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) conspiracy-846/acts-furthering-delivery-as-proof-of-knowing-participation 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — background/merits
conspiracy-846/tacit-agreement-inferred-from-joint-transport 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — background/merits
Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 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; /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — applied/merits
- OR Aiding and abetting route under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (cross-statute)
Cross-statute route only; § 2 supplies the aiding theory and § 841 supplies the substantive offense.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance (§ 841(b)(1)(A)-(C) 20-year mandatory minimum)
Under Burrage v. United States (571 U.S. 204 (2014)), "results from" requires actual ("but-for") causation (at least where the distributed drug was not an independently sufficient cause of death), rejecting "contributing cause" instructions.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) but-for-causation/contributing-cause-in-mixed-drug-overdose Mixed-drug intoxication where expert cannot say victim would have lived but for the heroin distributed by defendant fails § 841(b)(1)(C) enhancement (Burrage) 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /us/571/0204-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not - AND Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance
Routinely inferred from distribution-level quantity, purity, street value, packaging materials, scales, ledgers, firearms, or absence of personal-use paraphernalia.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count 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 10 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 10 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 01 /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 01 /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 50 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
- AND Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance)
Under McFadden v. United States (576 U.S. 186 (2015)), the government must prove the defendant knew he was dealing with "a controlled substance" (either by knowing the substance is listed on the federal schedules, or by knowing the physical identity/chemical makeup of the substance even if unaware it is scheduled).
3 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) admitted/defendant-admits-knowing-possession 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied circumstantial/loader-of-sealed-boxes-coordinated-with-delivery 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied circumstantial/owner-of-stash-premises-who-loaded-and-drove 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 100 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; /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — applied/merits; /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — applied/merits
- AND Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control)
Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
7 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) actual-possession/momentary-inspection-rejected Momentary handling of bricks of cocaine during an incomplete reverse-sting inspection without authority to control them is not possession (United States v. Kitchen) 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot actual/admitted-ownership-of-drugs-hidden-in-own-car 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied actual/drugs-concealed-on-person 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/235/0565-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied actual/momentary-handling-during-inspection-before-assent 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — not actual/physically-loaded-boxes-of-drugs 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied constructive/dominion-over-premises-or-vehicle-holding-drugs 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied constructive/driver-with-dominion-over-vehicle-holding-drugs 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied constructive/no-recognized-authority-over-sellers-drugs 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — not constructive/package-in-transit-with-common-carrier 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 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/procedural
Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 40 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; /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — applied/merits; /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — comparator/merits
- OR Recidivist enhancement for prior conviction for a serious drug felony or serious violent felony (§ 841(b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 851)
Governed by the notice and information procedures of 21 U.S.C. § 851 (and exempted from Apprendi's jury requirement under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)).
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — comparator/merits
- OR Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook)
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.
4 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) lower-tier-supported/sentence-within-proved-quantity-maximum 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/235/0565-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied mixture-or-substance/carrier-medium-weight-included 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/500/0453-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — satisfied mixture-or-substance/usable-plant-parts-with-detectable-drug-included 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — comparator/merits
threshold-found-by-jury/special-interrogatory 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 11 /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — satisfied Excluded context examples: /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — background/merits
threshold-not-found-by-jury/lab-weight-below-charged-tier 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/235/0565-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — not Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 40 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/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — applied/merits; /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — comparator/merits
- EXCEPTION Misdemeanor treatment for distributing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration (§ 841(b)(4))
Under Moncrieffe v. Holder (569 U.S. 184 (2013)), because § 841(b)(4) punishes social sharing of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration as a misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. § 844, a state marijuana distribution statute that reaches such conduct is not categorically an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) felony-vs-misdemeanor-tier/state-conviction-does-not-negate-b4-social-sharing 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/569/0184-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — comparator/merits
- EXCEPTION Misdemeanor treatment for distributing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration (§ 841(b)(4))
- AND Controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812 Schedules I-V) or counterfeit substance (§ 841(a)(2))
Includes controlled substance analogues treated as Schedule I under 21 U.S.C. § 813 when intended for human consumption (McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015)).
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) identity/counterfeit-pills-containing-fentanyl 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — background/merits
identity/lab-test-plus-defendant-admission 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/235/0565-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied schedule-i/marijuana 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/569/0184-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — comparator/merits
Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 70 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; /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — applied/merits; /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — applied/merits
- EXCEPTION Authorization exception ("Except as authorized by this subchapter") for registered practitioners/handlers
Under 21 U.S.C. § 885(a)(1), the government need not negative any statutory exemption or exception in the indictment or until the defendant satisfies the burden of going forward with evidence of registration/authorization; once produced by a registrant, Ruan (597 U.S. 450 (2022)) requires the government to prove knowing/intentional lack of authorization beyond a reasonable doubt.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Categorical / modified categorical comparison of state drug offense to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (INA / ACCA / Guidelines)
Frequently litigated when § 841 serves as the generic federal comparator in immigration (Moncrieffe), Armed Career Criminal Act, or Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §§ 2L1.2, 4B1.2) cases.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) state-predicate-matches-federal-offence/attempted-transfer-is-completed-delivery 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — comparator/merits
state-predicate-matches-federal-offence/no-implied-offer-to-sell 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f4th/142/259 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025 — comparator/merits
state-predicate-matches-federal-offence/overbreadth-only-theoretical-no-realistic-probability 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — comparator/merits
- OR Drug conspiracy route under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (cross-statute)
Cross-statute route only; § 846 is distinct from aiding under § 2 and from substantive § 841(a)(1).
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- DEFENSE Fifth Amendment Due Process / Equal Protection challenge to carrier-medium weight sentencing (Chapman)
Rejected in Chapman v. United States (500 U.S. 453 (1991)): Congress had a rational basis for tying penalty tiers to street weight of the mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the drug.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) rational-basis/street-weight-penalty-scheme 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/500/0453-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — applied/procedural
- DEFENSE Affirmative defense of entrapment (government inducement + lack of predisposition)
Requires showing government inducement of the crime plus absence of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct (Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988)).
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — applied/procedural
- DEFENSE Rule of lenity in construing ambiguous penalty provisions of § 841(b)
Invoked when statutory text of § 841(b) is grievously ambiguous (declined in Chapman where "mixture or substance" was held unambiguous; reinforced in Burrage where "results from" was given its ordinary but-for meaning).
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) no-grievous-ambiguity/plain-text-and-structure 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/500/0453-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — applied/procedural
- DEFENSE Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness challenge to "mixture or substance" or analogue provisions
Evaluated as applied to the facts of the case because § 841 implicates no First Amendment freedoms.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) as-applied/sentencing-term-not-vague 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/500/0453-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — applied/procedural
- AND Continuing-offense venue for § 841(a)(1) possession with intent to distribute / distribution (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a))
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), possession with intent to distribute and distribution across multiple districts are continuing offenses prosecutable in any district in which the offense was begun, continued, or completed.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) continuing-offense/drugs-shipped-by-courier-into-forum-district 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 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/procedural
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
21usc841:(a)(1)-prohibited-act
knowledge & (act.distribute | act.manufacture | act.dispense) & substance & !unauthorizedScoped to § 841(a)(1) manufacture/distribute/dispense routes. The separate possession-with-intent route is below; § 841(a)(2) counterfeit substance and § 841(c)–(h) offenses are intentionally unmodeled.
21usc841:(a)(1)-possession-with-intent
knowledge & possession & intent-to-distribute & substance & !unauthorizedPossession with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance under § 841(a)(1).
21usc841:(b)-aggravated-selected
((a)(1)-prohibited-act | (a)(1)-possession-with-intent) & (quantity | death-results | prior-conviction) & !quantity.marijuana-small-amount-no-remunerationSelected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(C) tiers only. Quantity is a partial drug-specific threshold table; remaining § 841(b) tiers and § 841(c)–(h) offenses are intentionally unmodeled. Applicable sentence-increasing facts must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, apart from prior-conviction treatment.