Section 841 - Prohibited acts A

71 Citing briefs

  1. USA v. FedEx Corporation et al

    Memorandum in Opposition

    Filed April 22, 2015

    TO DISMISS 22 CR No. 14-380 CRB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of some form of illegal activity, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity.6 Super. Ind. ¶¶ 63, 108, 115. In support of these charges, the superseding indictment alleged that the financial transactions at the heart of these three conspiracies involved the proceeds of “the possession with intent to distribute and distribution of controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, knowing and intending that the possession with intent to distribute and distribution was outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Id.

  2. USA v. FedEx Corporation et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Counts Due to Expiration of the Statute of Limitations

    Filed January 13, 2016

    #28 at ¶ 89.  Count Fifteen alleges a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 that occurred on August 15, 2008. Dkt.

  3. USA v. Sitzmann

    MOTION for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, for a New Trial

    Filed January 23, 2013

    The first conspiracy prosecuted in the trial, involving the transportation of cocaine across the United States into Canada in 1998 and 1999, could be found by a reasonable juror to be a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§841(a) and 846. But Rule 29 will not permit a reasonable juror to find a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§841(a) and 846 where cocaine was obtained in Colombia and transported directly to Spain. In sum, the government presented no evidence that a co-conspirator committed any act in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in Count One in the District of Columbia during the limitations period.

  4. USA v. FedEx Corporation et al

    MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment

    Filed March 25, 2015

    29 Motion to Dismiss No. CR 14-380 (CRB) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 U.S.C. § 841. The charges must be dismissed because liability is precluded by the exemption contained in § 822(c)(2).

  5. USA v. Maddox et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support of 1010 MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 / Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255

    Filed November 30, 2015

    Mr. Cooper’s conviction, founded upon a blatant due process violation, cannot and should not stand. BACKGROUND A. Criminal Proceedings Ronnie Cooper was charged with (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; (2) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; (3) conspiracy to distribute and possess with 3 intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; (4) conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956; and (5) conspiracy to intimidate a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512 and 1513. (ECF No. 398, Page ID # 2211–28.)

  6. The People, Appellant,v.Roman Baret, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed May 1, 2014

    (Board of Immigration Appeals [hereinafter BIA] Decision at 4). The BIA, in turn, dismissed defendant's appeal, holding that her New York misdemeanor conviction is an aggravated felony under the Controlled Substances Act [CSA], 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841 (b)(l)(D). Id.

  7. Salazar v. United States of America

    RESPONSE to Motion for 2255 Relief re Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence

    Filed April 4, 2016

    For the reasons explained supra in footnote 2, the United States disagrees with this holding. Case 2:16-cv-00165-MV-SMV Document 5 Filed 04/04/16 Page 7 of 11 offense, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), and his 12-year sentence as a career offender was well within those statutory parameters. In cases describing appellate review under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court has characterized errors in calculating a defendant’s advisory guidelines range as “procedural,” rather than substantive.

  8. Alvarez v. United States of America

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Motion for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motions referred to Peter E. Ormsby.

    Filed January 25, 2016

    In count three, Flores, Flores, Jr., and Negrete were charged with possession with intent to distribute 217 kilograms of cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Under count four, Guerra was charged with possession with intent to distribute 500 Case 7:15-cv-00280 Document 6 Filed in TXSD on 01/25/16 Page 4 of 90 5 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (DE- 55). The indictment was superseded on October 9, 2007.

  9. USA v. Maddox et al

    MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 / Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255

    Filed November 30, 2015

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. In a Third Superseding Indictment dated July 10, 2010, Mr. Cooper was charged before this Court with (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; (2) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; (3) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; (4) conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956; and 2 (5) conspiracy to intimidate a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512 and 1513. (ECF No. 398, Page ID # 2211–28.)

  10. USA v. FedEx Corporation et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed September 30, 2015

    Gaston Blanchet Gaston Blanchet owned and operated GTM World, Inc. and GTM USA Corp., two companies that acquired and resold FedEx shipping services to Johar Saran and other members of Saran’s illegal Internet pharmacy operation. On September 6, 2006, Blanchet pled guilty to one count of knowingly and intentionally conspiring to distribute Schedule III and IV controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Case No.