A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
- 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.
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) double-jeopardy/separate-deals-linked-by-informant 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/921/0951-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
evidentiary-error/corroborating-shipment-coordination 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/933/0501-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — background/procedural
express/coordination Planning about sourcing, distribution, funding or shared proceeds can demonstrate a common objective. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot retrial/sufficient-record-including-erroneously-admitted-testimony 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/934/1251-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
supply-network/cohabiting-supplier-and-distributor 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/932/1091-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied tacit/circumstantial Mutual understanding may be inferred from coordinated conduct, repeated distribution-level purchases and context; guilt still requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits
- 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
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) belief/non-narcotic-substitute-believed-heroin 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/525/0881-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/693/0838-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 — applied/hypothetical
- 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.
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) tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — 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: /f3d/921/0951-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural; /us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits
- 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.
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) tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits
- 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
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) distribution/admitted-recurring-methamphetamine-sales 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/932/1091-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied distribution/agreement Agreement to distribute controlled substances; successful distribution is not required. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot possession-with-intent/attempt Intent to possess a controlled substance for distribution plus strongly corroborative conduct. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/932/0176-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — background/procedural; /us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits
- 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
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) sentencing/relevant-conduct-different-drug 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/935/0527-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — background/procedural
- AND Conduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intent
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
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) 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. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot objective-corroboration/equivocal-substitute-sale 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f2d/525/0881-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976 — not 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. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot preparation/refused-money-and-returned-package 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f2d/693/0838-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982 — not - 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 variants recorded in this snapshot.
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.