A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
21usc846:846-conspiracy
object-offense & agreement & knowledge & intentional-joinder & !withdrawal-limitationsJudicial construction of conspires, not a statutory enumeration: agreement to commit an offense in this subchapter, knowledge of its unlawful objective, and intentional joining/participation are required. Participation means joining, not a separate overt act. Agreement must include at least two genuine conspirators; a government agent feigning agreement cannot alone supply the second party.
21usc846:846-attempt
object-offense & attempt-intent & substantial-stepAttempt separately requires intent to commit the identified object offense plus a substantial step strongly corroborating that intent. The conspiracy no-overt-act rule does not eliminate attempt's conduct requirement. Completion is unnecessary.
Constraints
Joining an actual common unlawful undertaking requires more than dealing solely with an informant or knowing other offenders
Leal applies the Tenth Circuit interdependence formulation: participants must advance a shared criminal objective. Separate agreements linked only through an informant were not one conspiracy. Other circuits express the common-objective rule through agreement/joinder; this constraint does not nationalize the Tenth Circuit's four-item instructions.
Law modes, protocols and effects
law
Law kind: substantive
element-effect
21usc846:withdrawal-limitations: bars-liability — Bars prosecution when timely raised and established; withdrawal alone does not undo a completed conspiracy.
Statute text with element anchors
Overlapping highlights link to the first element; the anchor key links every associated element. All offsets refer to unchanged source text.
§846. Attempt and conspiracy Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. ( Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §406, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1265 ; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6470(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4377 .)All element anchor links
- Intent to commit the identified object offense — offsets [44:52]
- Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent — offsets [44:52]
- Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object — offsets [56:65]
- Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement — offsets [56:65]
- Knowledge of the unlawful agreement and objective — offsets [56:65]
- Withdrawal before the applicable limitations period — offsets [56:65]
- Identified offense in Subchapter I — offsets [66:114]
- Object-offense penalty incorporation — offsets [115:259]
Element outline
- AND Identified offense in Subchapter I
Import/export conspiracies under section 963 are not automatically section 846 offenses. Drug type/quantity and defendant-specific penalty findings require the object statute and applicable circuit rules; none is imposed here as a universal element of all section 846 offenses.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 2 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 Used only in non-merits blocks (2).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Galecki — 932 F.3d 176 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Shabani — 513 U.S. 10 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordeddistribution
provisional; provisional (1 case)Agreement to distribute controlled substances; successful distribution is not required. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States v. Mazzulla — 932 F.3d 1091 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: admitted-recurring-methamphetamine-salespossession-with-intent
provisional; 0 observed casesIntent to possess a controlled substance for distribution plus strongly corroborative conduct. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot - AND Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object
A buyer-seller transaction alone does not establish agreement to a further distribution conspiracy. Repetition/quantity and coordinated dealings can support the inference; no mechanical transaction-count rule is asserted.
7 merits instance blocks; 7 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed 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 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Shabani — 513 U.S. 10 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_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 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Norman — 935 F.3d 232 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · comparator/merits · not counted
Pattern: categorical-approach/no-overt-act-so-broader-than-generic-conspiracy_procedural
accepted; 3 observed casesThe element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 30 Used only in non-merits blocks (3).
Excluded context examples:U.S. v. Leal — 921 F.3d 951 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/procedural · not counted
Pattern: double-jeopardy/separate-deals-linked-by-informantUnited States v. Buchanan — 933 F.3d 501 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted
Pattern: evidentiary-error/corroborating-shipment-coordinationUnited States v. Hawkins — 934 F.3d 1251 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/procedural · not counted
Pattern: retrial/sufficient-record-including-erroneously-admitted-testimony_whole
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States v. Delgado — 367 F. Supp. 3d 286 (2019) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: prostitution-ring/drugs-supplied-to-victims-as-paymentexpress-agreement
provisional; 0 observed casesPlanning about sourcing, distribution, funding or shared proceeds can demonstrate a common objective. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot inferred-from-dealings
provisional; 6 observed casesWhether an agreement to distribute is inferred from the parties' course of dealing rather than an express pact. 6
Satisfied 5; not satisfied 1; excluded context 06 United States v. Guzman-Ortiz — 365 F. Supp. 3d 215 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: two-person-conspiracy/visitor-helps-hide-heroin-during-raidUnited States v. Lyle — 919 F.3d 716 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: buyer-seller-exception/supplier-with-many-customers-repeatedly-sells-pound-quantities-to-a-fellow-dealerUnited States v. Moreno — 922 F.3d 787 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: tacit/wholesale-purchases-on-credit-and-shared-trap-vehicles - AND Knowledge of the unlawful agreement and objective
Knowing that others commit drug crimes does not itself establish that this defendant chose to join. Culpability as to the substance follows the chosen object offense; general association with offenders is insufficient.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed 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 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Shabani — 513 U.S. 10 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_whole
accepted; 2 observed casesThe element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 02 U.S. v. Montijo-Dominguez — 922 F.3d 1071 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: last-minute-driver/claimed-belief-in-extortion-payment-rejected-by-juryUnited States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases - AND Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement
Potter reconciles two- and three-part formulations. Participation distinguishes intentional joinder from mere presence; it cannot resurrect the overt-act requirement rejected by Shabani. Separate knowledge and volition are required, without an additional universal act requirement.
3 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 2 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 Used only in non-merits blocks (2).
Excluded context examples:U.S. v. Leal — 921 F.3d 951 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/procedural · not counted
Pattern: not recordedUnited States v. Shabani — 513 U.S. 10 (1994) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_whole
accepted; 3 observed casesThe element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. 3
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 1; excluded context 03 United States v. Guzman-Ortiz — 365 F. Supp. 3d 215 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: mere-presence-at-stash-apartment/knowledge-without-participationUnited States v. Delgado — 367 F. Supp. 3d 286 (2019) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: driver-given-drugs-to-supply-victims/own-admissionsUnited States v. Potter — 927 F.3d 446 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases - DEFENSE Withdrawal before the applicable limitations period
Smith, 568 U.S. 106, 110-14 (2013), is judicial interpretation applied to section 846 and RICO conspiracies, not an exception written into section 846. Defendant bears withdrawal by a preponderance; affirmative disavowal/defeat of the conspiracy is required, not mere inactivity. Government still must prove a timely continuing conspiracy when limitations is raised. The formula negates this combined time-bar defense, not withdrawal standing alone; termination, tolling, waiver, and offense-specific limitations must be assessed separately.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No routes recorded for this element.
- AND Intent to commit the identified object offense
Judicial interpretation supplies the attempt test missing from enacted text. Intent must target the particular object, including intent to distribute where that is the object; awareness that a transaction might occur is insufficient.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed 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 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Joyce — 693 F.2d 838 (1982) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/hypothetical · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_whole
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States v. Oviedo — 525 F.2d 881 (1976) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 — satisfied · proved (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: belief/non-narcotic-substitute-believed-heroin - AND Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent
(formerly `variant preparation/insufficient`) Joyce found travel, available money and preliminary dealings insufficient on its record when the defendant refused the proposed purchase before a substantial step. (formerly `variant objective-corroboration/equivocal`) Oviedo reversed where selling a nonnarcotic substitute and other acts were equivocal under the Fifth Circuit test; intent alone cannot supply the act. These are circuit-specific applications, not universal rules that travel never suffices, abandonment excuses an already completed attempt, or sham drugs always make attempt impossible. Assess intent and step together in context.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _whole
accepted; 2 observed casesThe element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. 2
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 02 United States v. Oviedo — 525 F.2d 881 (1976) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: objective-corroboration/equivocal-substitute-saleUnited States v. Joyce — 693 F.2d 838 (1982) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 — not · no-evidence (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: preparation/refused-money-and-returned-package - AND Object-offense penalty incorporation
Consequence after offense proof, not a universal extra liability conjunct. The 1988 amendment replaced the earlier maximum-only formula. Use current object-offense penalty law and offense-date rules; this node supplies no blanket quantity-attribution rule.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _whole
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. McCloud — 935 F.3d 527 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted
Pattern: sentencing/relevant-conduct-different-drug