Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124 (2008). · Go Syfert
Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124 (2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
566 citation events (564 in the last 25 years) across 58 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. King (dcd, 2023-11-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. King
D.D.C. · 2023 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words . . . in the usual case.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Johnson v. United States
S.D. Fla. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he term 'felony' is commonly defined to mean a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Huashan Zhang v. USCIS
D.C. Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words ... in the usual case.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Nathaniel Ruth
7th Cir. · 2020 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the term 'felony drug offense' contained in 841(b)(1)(a) ... is defined exclusively by 802(44) ....
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Nathaniel Ruth
7th Cir. · 2020 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the term 'felony drug offense' contained in 841(b)(1)(a) ... is defined exclusively by 802(44) ....
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Michael Portanova
3rd Cir. · 2020 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words . . . in the usual case.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Reynold De La Torre
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the term 'felony drug offense' contained in 841(b)(1)(a) ... is de fined exclusively by 802(44) ....
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Reynold De La Torre
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the term 'felony drug offense' contained in 841(b)(1)(a) ... is de fined exclusively by 802(44) ....
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Jason Alexander Phifer (4×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
11th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · quote attribution · 4 verbatim quotes · confidence high
as a rule definition which declares what a term 'means' . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Dana's Railroad Supply v. Attorney General, State of Florida (9×) also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2015 · signal: accord · quote attribution · 5 verbatim quotes · confidence high
statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words . . . in the usual case.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) In Re Any & All Funds & Assets in Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. Acct 8870792 in Name of Tiger Eye Investments Ltd. (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 2009 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words . . . in the usual case.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
D.D.C. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
it is hornbook law that the use of the word 'including' indicates that the specified list . . . that follows is illustrative, not exclusive.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Marschke v. YouTube, LLC
N.D. Cal. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
when a term is defined 20 within a statute, that term must be construed by applying the statutory definition provided by the 21 legislature.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lighting Retrofit International, LLC v. Constellation Newenergy, Inc.
D. Maryland · 2023 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the word 'includes' is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Grand Canyon Education Inc. v. Lee Ward (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
term whose statutory definition declares what it 'includes' is more susceptible to extension of meaning . . . than where . . . the definition declares what a term 'means
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Jose Aguirre-Ganceda
9th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a state drug offense punishable by more than one year therefore qualifies as a 'felony drug offense,' even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Phifer (3×)
11th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
as a rule definition which declares what a term 'means' ... excludes any meaning that is not stated.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States Ex Rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp. (3×)
D.D.C. · 2014 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words ... in the usual case.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Jaktine Moore (3×)
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the term 'felony drug offense' contained in 841(b)(1)(a) is defined exclusively by 802(44)....
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Bormes v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words ... in the usual case.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) In Re Any & All Funds or Other Assets in Brown Bros. Harriman & Co. (3×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 2009 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words ... in the usual case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Alaska v. National Marine Fisheries Service
9th Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
Whatever that adjective might mean in isolation, “[s]tatutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 129 (2008) (quoting Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & S.S.
cited Cited as authority (rule) John F. Hughes v. IAFF Financial Corporation
D. Mass. · 2026 · confidence medium
This principle resolves the question before us.” Id. at 160 (quoting Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jennifer L. Plesha, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ascension Health Alliance
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
“Statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words ... in the usual case.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 129-30 (2008) (quoting Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & S.S.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Terrell Stevenson
6th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
The jury could infer that he possessed and dropped a hard metal object—evidence further suggesting that he possessed a gun. -3- No. 24-5922, United States v. Stevenson Stevenson also argues that—because there is a “negligible difference” under section 924(c) between using a firearm (which carries a five-year mandatory minimum) and brandishing one (which carries a seven-year mandatory minimum)—the rule of lenity demands that he receive the “lower sentence.” But that rule of lenity “applies only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Virginia Montoya Cabanas v. Pamela Bondi, et al
S.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
For example, see Digital Realty Trust, Inc v Somers, 583 US 149, 160 (2018), quoting Burgess v United States, 553 US 124, 130 (2008): “When a statute includes an explicit definition, [courts] must follow that definition, even if it varies from a term’s ordinary meaning.” Attempts by Petitioner to distinguish an applicant for admission from an alien seeking admission are unavailing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The Merit Systems Protection Board's Authority to Adjudicate Constitutional Questions within an Administrative Proceeding
OLC · 2025 · confidence medium
Cir. May 3, 2024) (explaining the Federal Circuit has discretion “whether to 1 Because Congress has expressly defined “employee,” 5 U.S.C. § 7511 (a)(1), “‘we must follow that definition,’ even if it varies from [the] term’s ordinary meaning,” Digital Realty Tr., Inc. v. Somers, 583 U.S. 149, 160 (2018) (quoting Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patrick Leaks v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
But because section 841(b)(1)(C) does not require that a prior conviction have a mens rea element to be a felony drug offense, “the failure to raise [this] nonmeritorious issue[] d[id] not constitute ineffective assistance.” See Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547, 1573 (11th Cir. 1994). “[F]elony drug offense,” as used in section 841(b)(1)(C), is “defined exclusively by [21 U.S.C. section] 802(44).” See Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 126 (2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patrick Leaks v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
But because section 841(b)(1)(C) does not require that a prior conviction have a mens rea element to be a felony drug offense, “the failure to raise [this] nonmeritorious issue[] d[id] not constitute ineffective assistance.” See Bolender v. Singletary, 16 F.3d 1547, 1573 (11th Cir. 1994). “[F]elony drug offense,” as used in section 841(b)(1)(C), is “defined exclusively by [21 U.S.C. section] 802(44).” See Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 126 (2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. United States
SCOTUS · 2024 · confidence medium
First of all, ACCA expressly defnes “serious drug of- fense,” § 924(e)(2)(A), and “[w]hen a statute includes an ex- plicit defnition, we must follow that defnition,” Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. 124, 130 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. United States Revisions: 5/28/24
SCOTUS · 2024 · confidence medium
First of all, ACCA expressly defines “serious drug of- fense,” §924(e)(2)(A), and “[w]hen a statute includes an ex- plicit definition, we must follow that definition,” Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. 124, 130 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. United States
SCOTUS · 2024 · confidence medium
First of all, ACCA expressly defines “serious drug of- fense,” §924(e)(2)(A), and “[w]hen a statute includes an ex- plicit definition, we must follow that definition,” Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. 124, 130 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance Company
N.D. Ill. · 2024 · confidence medium
“Statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words ... in the usual case.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 129 (2008) (quoting Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & S.S.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Monta Anderson v. United States
7th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
See § 802(44) (“fel- ony drug offense” means, inter alia, “an offense that is punish- able by imprisonment for more than one year”); Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124 , 129–30, 128 S. Ct. 1572, 1577 (2008); United States v. Elder, 840 F.3d 455 , 461–62 (7th Cir. 2016).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Salinas v. Blinken
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
Commercial Lines L.L.C., 805 F.3d 134, 140 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 129 (2008)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Texas Aromatics v. Intercontinental Terminals
5th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words . . . in the usual case.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 129 (2008) (cleaned up); see also Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 942 (2000) (“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition . . . .”).5 Thus, OPA’s definition of “oil” warrants repetition: oil of any kind or in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil, but does not include any substance which is specifically listed or designated as a hazardous subs…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Vargas
5th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
It is well established that a “definition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brandon Romel Dupree
11th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
A “definition which declares what a term ‘means’ excludes any meaning that is not stated.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008) (alterations adopted) (inter- nal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Nasir, 17 F.4th 459, 471 (3d Cir. 2021) (en banc) (“The guideline does not even mention inchoate offenses.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People of Michigan v. Dion Lamarr Vaughn
Mich. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
A facility shall make its police book and its records of vehicle part sales, purchases, or acquisitions immediately available for inspection by the administrator and other law enforcement officials if a request for inspection is made.” [MCL 257.1318(4).] -9- v United States, 553 US 124, 131, n 3 ; 128 S Ct 1572 ; 170 L Ed 2d 478 (2008) (“ ‘[a] term whose statutory definition declares what it “includes” is more susceptible to extension of meaning . . . than where . . . the definition declares what a term “means” ’ ” ), and United States v Howard, 742 F3d 1334, 1348 (CA 11, 201…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Larry Dockery v. Stephen Heretick
3rd Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Because the District Court did not err in construing Va. Code § 59.1-475, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. definitions control the meaning of statutory words.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008) (quoting Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & S.S.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jeffrey Johnson
7th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Thus, “controlled substance analogue” is not the same as “any ana- logue of [fentanyl].” Generally, “[s]tatutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 129 (2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Trey Campbell
4th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
The traditional tools of construction — and common sense — dictate that “a definition which declares what a term ‘means’ excludes any meaning that is not stated.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008) (cleaned up) (quoting Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 , 392–93 n.10 (1979)). 4 Second, the Sentencing Guidelines’ parallel definition of “crime of violence” immediately prior to the definition of “controlled substance offense” explicitly includes attempt offenses.
cited Cited as authority (rule) KELSO v. WARDEN
S.D. Ind. · 2021 · confidence medium
Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008); see also United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 456 (6th Cir. 2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JOHNSON v. WATSON
S.D. Ind. · 2021 · confidence medium
Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008); see also United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 456 (6th Cir. 2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Swift & Staley, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2021 · confidence medium
See Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767, 776 (2018); Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 129 (2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Frey
1st Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Because the Reservation's definition excludes any definition that is not stated, see Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008), because it does not say that it includes the River or its submerged lands, and because the Supreme Court has said that "'[s]olely' means 'alone,'" Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833, 1842 (2018), and that "'[s]olely' leaves no leeway" for anything more, Helvering v. Sw.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tanzin v. Tanvir
SCOTUS · 2020 · confidence medium
The problem with this otherwise plausible argument is that Congress supplanted the ordinary meaning of “govern- ment” with a different, express definition. “ ‘When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that defini- tion,’ even if it varies from a term’s ordinary meaning.” Dig- ital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U. S. ___ , ___ (slip op., at 9) (quoting Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. 124, 130 (2008)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James R. Welcome v. Robert L. Wilkie
Vet. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 129 (2008) ("Statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words . . . in the usual case." (quotation marks omitted)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodson v. Poe
N.D. Ala. · 2020 · confidence medium
However, when a term is defined within the statute, that definition “declares what the term means . . . [and] . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008) (quoting Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 , 392–393, n.10 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jorge Rangel
9th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009); Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 135 (2008) (characterizing the felony- drug-offense definition as “coherent, complete, and by all signs exclusive”). 8 1256–57 (9th Cir. 2019).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burgess
v.
United States
Jeffrey L. Fisher, by appointment of the Court, 552 U. S. 1138, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Pamela S. Karlan, Amy Howe, Kevin K. Russell, Laurence H. Tribe, and Thomas C. Goldstein., Nicole A. Saharsky argued the cause for the United States. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Daniel S. Goodman.*
Ginsburg.
Cited by 262 opinions  |  Published
10 passages pin-cited by 12 cases
Pinpoint authority: #6,989 of 633,719
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (10) · District of Columbia (6) · Eighth Circuit (3) · Federal Circuit (3) · Ninth Circuit (1) · N.D. California (1) · Court of Appeals of Georgia (1)
Justice Ginsburg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

For certain federal drug offenses, the Controlled Substances Act mandates a minimum sentence of imprisonment for ten years. 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(A). That minimum doubles to 20 years for defendants previously convicted of a “felony drug offense.” Ibid. The question in this case is whether a state drug offense classified as a misdemeanor, but punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment, is a “felony drug offense” as that term is used in § 841(b)(1)(A).

Two statutory definitions figure in our decision. Section 802(13) defines the unadorned term “felony” to mean any “offense classified by applicable Federal or State law as a felony.” Section 802(44) defines the compound term “felony drug offense” to mean an offense involving specified drugs that is “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the United States or of a State or foreign country.”

The term “felony drug offense” contained in § 841(b)(l)(A)’s provision for a 20-year minimum sentence, we hold, is defined exclusively by § 802(44) and does not incorporate § 802(13)’s definition of “felony.” A state drug offense punishable by more than one year therefore qualifies as a “felony drug[*127] offense,” even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor.

I

Petitioner Keith Lavon Burgess pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(a) and 846. [1] A violation of § 841(a) involving that quantity of cocaine base ordinarily carries a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. § 841(b)(1)(A). The minimum sentence increases to 20 years, however, if the crime follows a prior conviction for a “felony drug offense.” Ibid.

Burgess had previously been convicted of possessing cocaine in violation of S. C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(c) and (d)(1) (2002 and Supp. 2007). Although that offense carried a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment, South Carolina classified it as a misdemeanor. § 44-53-370(d)(l). Burgess’ prior South Carolina conviction, the Government urged, raised the minimum sentence for his federal conviction to 20 years. The enhancement was mandatory, the Government maintained, because Congress defined “felony drug offense” to include state cocaine offenses “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” 21 U. S. C. §802(44). [2]

Burgess contested the enhancement of his federal sentence. The term “felony drug offense,” he argued, incorporates the term “felony,” a word separately defined in § 802(13) to mean “any Federal or State offense classified by[*128] applicable Federal or State law as a felony.” A prior drug offense does not rank as a “felony drug offense,” he contended, unless it is (1) classified as a felony under the law of the punishing jurisdiction, per § 802(13); and (2) punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment, per § 802(44).

Rejecting Burgess’ argument, the District Court ruled that § 802(44) alone controls the meaning of “felony drug offense” as that term is used in § 841(b)(1)(A). Although the District Court’s ruling subjected Burgess to a 20-year minimum sentence, the Government moved for a downward departure based on Burgess’ substantial assistance in another prosecution. See 18 U. S. C. § 3553(e) (2000 ed., Supp. V). The court granted the motion and sentenced Burgess to 156 months’ imprisonment followed by ten years’ supervised release.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The “‘commonsense way to interpret “felony drug offense,” ’ ” that court said, “ ‘is by reference to the definition in §802(44).’” 478 F. 3d 658, 662 (2007) (quoting United States v. Roberson, 459 F. 3d 39, 52 (CAI 2006)). The Fourth Circuit found nothing in the “plain language or statutory scheme ... to indicate that Congress intended ‘felony drug offense’ also to incorporate the definition [of ‘felony’] in § 802(13).” 478 F. 3d, at 662.

Burgess, proceeding pro se, petitioned for a writ of certiorari. We granted the writ, 552 U. S. 1074 (2007), to resolve a split among the Circuits on the question Burgess presents: Does a drug crime classified as a misdemeanor by state law, but punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment, rank as a “felony drug offense” under 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(A)? Compare 478 F. 3d 658 (case below) and Roberson, 459 F. 3d 39 (§ 802(44) provides exclusive definition of “felony drug offense”), with United States v. West, 393 F. 3d 1302 (CADC 2005) (both § 802(13) and § 802(44) limit meaning of “felony drug offense”).

[*129] II

A

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., contains two definitions central to the dispute before us; they bear repetition in full. Section 802(13) provides:

“The term ‘felony’ means any Federal or State offense classified by applicable Federal or State law as a felony.”

Section 802(44) states:

“The term ‘felony drug offense’ means an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the United States or of a State or foreign country that prohibits or restricts conduct relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, anabolic steroids, or depressant or stimulant substances.”

Burgess argues here, as he did below, that “felony drug offense,” as used in § 841(b)(1)(A), should be construed to incorporate both the definition of “felony” in § 802(13) and the definition of “felony drug offense” in §802(44). Under his reading, the § 841(b)(1)(A) enhancement is triggered only when the prior conviction is both “classified by applicable Federal or State law as a felony,” § 802(13), and “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year,” §802(44).

The Government, in contrast, reads §802(44) to provide the exclusive definition of “felony drug offense.” Under the Government’s reading, all defendants whose prior drug crimes were punishable by more than one year in prison would be subject to the § 841(b)(1)(A) enhancement, regardless of the punishing jurisdiction’s classification of the offense.

The Government’s reading, we are convinced, correctly interprets the statutory text and context. Section 802(44) defines the precise phrase used in § 841(b)(1)(A) — “felony drug offense.” “Statutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words ... in the usual case.” Lawson v. Suwannee [*130] Fruit & S. S. Co., 386 U. S. 198, 201 (1949). See also Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 942 (2000) (“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition . . . .”); 2A N. Singer & J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction §47:7, pp. 298-299, and nn. 2-3 (7th ed. 2007) (hereinafter Singer).

The CSA, to be sure, also defines the term “felony.” The language and structure of the statute, however, indicate that Congress used the phrase “felony drug offense” as a term of art defined by §802(44) without reference to §802(13). First, Congress stated that “[t]he term ‘felony drug offense’ means an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” §802(44) (emphasis added). “As a rule, [a] definition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated.” Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 392-393, n. 10 (1979) (some internal quotation marks omitted). See also Groman v. Commissioner, 302 U. S. 82, 86 (1937); 2A Singer §47:7, p. 306, and n. 20.

Second, the term “felony” is commonly defined to mean a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 3559(a) (classifying crimes with a maximum term of more than one year as felonies); Black’s Law Dictionary 651 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “felony” as “[a] serious crime usu[ally] punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death”). Section 802(44)’s definition of “felony drug offense” as “an offense ... punishable by imprisonment for more than one year,” in short, leaves no blank to be filled by §802(13) or any other definition of “felony.”

Third, if Congress wanted “felony drug offense” to incorporate the definition of “felony” in § 802(13), it easily could have written §802(44) to state: “The term ‘felony drug offense’ means a felony that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year . . . .” See Roberson, 459 F. 3d, at 52. Congress has often used that drafting technique — i. e., re[*131] peating a discretely defined word — when it intends to incorporate the definition of a particular word into the definition of a compound expression. See, e. g., 15 U. S. C. § 1672(a)-(b) (defining “earnings” and then defining “disposable earnings” as “that part of the earnings” meeting certain criteria); 18 U. S. C. § 1956(c)(3)-(4) (defining “transaction” and then defining “financial transaction” as “a transaction which” meets other criteria); § 1961(1), (5) (2000 ed. and Supp. V) (defining “racketeering activity” and then defining “pattern of racketeering activity” to require “at least two acts of racketeering activity”). [3]

[*132] Fourth, our reading avoids anomalies that would arise if both 21 U. S. C. § 802(13) and § 802(44) governed application of the sentencing enhancement in § 841(b)(1)(A). Notably, §802(44) includes foreign offenses punishable by more than one year, while § 802(13) includes only federal and state offenses. Incorporation of §802(13) into § 841(b)(1)(A) would exclude enhancement based on a foreign offense, notwithstanding the express inclusion of foreign offenses in § 802(44)’s definition of “felony drug offense.” Furthermore, some States and many foreign jurisdictions do not label offenses as felonies or misdemeanors. See N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:l-4 (West 2005); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, §1252 (Supp. 2007); Brief for United States 35. Burgess’ compound definition of “felony drug offense” leaves unanswered the appropriate classification of drug convictions in those jurisdictions. See, e. g., United States v. Brown, 937 F. 2d 68, 70 (CA2 1991) (relying on New Jersey common law to determine that the State classifies offenses punishable by more than one year as felonies). No such uncertainty arises under the precise definition Congress provided in §802(44).

Finally, reading § 802(44) as the exclusive definition of “felony drug offense” hardly renders § 802(13) extraneous. Section 802(13) serves to define “felony” for many CSA provisions using that unadorned term. See, e.g., §§ 824(a)(2) (revocation of license to manufacture controlled substances upon conviction of a felony), 843(b) (use of a communication facility to commit a felony), 843(d)(l)-(2) (sentencing enhancements), 843(e) (prohibition on engaging in transactions[*133] involving listed chemicals upon conviction of a felony involving those chemicals), 848(c)(1) (definition of “continuing criminal enterprise”), 848(e)(1)(B) (mandatory minimum term for killing a law enforcement officer to avoid prosecution for a felony), 853(d) (rebuttable presumption that property acquired during commission of certain felonies is subject to criminal forfeiture), 878(a)(3) (authority to make warrantless arrest where there is probable cause to believe a felony has been committed).

B

The drafting history of the CSA reinforces our reading of §802(44) as the exclusive definition of “felony drug offense.” In 1988, Congress first used the term “felony drug offense” to describe the type of prior conviction that would trigger a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A). See National Narcotics Leadership Act, Pub. L. 100-690, § 6452(a), 102 Stat. 4371. The 1988 definition of the term was placed within § 841(b)(1)(A) itself; the definition covered “an offense that is a felony under any . . . Federal law . . . or . . . any law of a State or a foreign country” prohibiting or restricting conduct relating to certain types of drugs. § 6452(a)(2), ibid 4 But in 1994, Congress amended the definition, replacing “an offense that is a felony under . . . any law of a State,” ibid, (emphasis added), with “an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law ... of a State,” Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, Pub. L. 103-322, § 90105(c)-(d), 108[*134] Stat. 1988 (emphasis added). In lieu of incorporation within § 841(b)(1)(A), the new definition was placed in a discrete §802 definition section. Ibid.

This alteration lends considerable support to our reading of the statute. Before 1994, the definition of “felony drug offense” depended on the vagaries of state-law classifications of offenses as felonies or misdemeanors. The 1994 amendments replaced that definition with a uniform federal standard based on the authorized length of imprisonment. By recognizing §802(44) as the exclusive definition of “felony drug offense,” our reading serves an evident purpose of the 1994 revision: to bring a measure of uniformity to the application of § 841(b)(1)(A) by eliminating disparities based on divergent state classifications of offenses.

By contrast, Burgess reads the 1994 alteration as merely adding a length-of-imprisonment requirement to a definition that already required — and, he contends, continues to require — designation of an offense as a felony by the punishing jurisdiction. That view, however, is difficult to square with Congress’ deletion of the word “felony” and substitution of the phrase “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.”

If Burgess were correct, moreover, the sole effect of the 1994 change would have been to exclude from the compass of § 841(b)(1)(A) the few drug offenses classified as felonies under the law of the punishing jurisdiction but subject to a sentence of one year or less. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-8. [5] See also Brief for Petitioner 15 (purpose of 1994 alteration was to eliminate enhancement for “truly minor offenses” nonetheless classified as felonies). Burgess concedes that under[*135] his reading of the statute “the language that Congress added [in 1994] has very little practical effect,” but defends his interpretation on the ground that Congress labeled the changes “conforming amendments.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. See also 108 Stat. 1987; Brief for Petitioner 12.

Burgess places more weight on the “Conforming Amendments” caption than it can bear. Congress did not disavow any intent to make substantive changes; rather, the amendments were “conforming” because they harmonized sentencing provisions in the CSA and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, 84 Stat. 1285, 21 U. S. C. § 951 et seq. Treating the amendments as nonsubstantive would be inconsistent with their text, not to mention Burgess’ own view that §802(44) added a new length-of-imprisonment requirement to the definition of “felony drug offense.”

In sum, the 1994 alteration replaced a patchwork of state and foreign classifications with a uniform federal standard based on the authorized term of imprisonment. Burgess’ argument that Congress added something — the definition now in §802(44) — but subtracted nothing encounters formidable impediments: the text and history of the statute.

C

Burgess urges us to apply the rule of lenity in determining whether the term “felony drug offense” incorporates §802(13)’s definition of “felony.” “[T]he touchstone of the rule of lenity is statutory ambiguity.” Bifulco v. United States, 447 U. S. 381, 387 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The rule comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed,” Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587,596 (1961), and “applies only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute,” United States v. Shabani, 513 U. S. 10, 17 (1994). Here, Congress expressly defined the term “felony drug offense.” The definition is coherent, complete, and by all signs exclusive.[*136] Accordingly, there is no ambiguity for the rule of lenity to resolve.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is

Affirmed.

1

Although Title 21 of the United States Code has not been enacted as positive law, we refer to it rather than the underlying provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, 84 Stat. 1242, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., for the sake of simplicity. The relevant provisions of Title 21 have not changed from the time of Burgess’ offense, and all citations are to the 2000 edition through Supplement V.

2

Burgess received a one-year suspended sentence for his South Carolina conviction, but does not dispute that the offense was “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” §802(44) (emphasis added).

3

Burgess offers four examples of defined words nested within defined phrases where, he asserts, the definition of the word is embraced within the phrase, although the word is not repeated in the definition of the phrase. See Reply Brief 11-12; Tr. of Oral Arg. 6,11-12. In all but one of these examples, however, the definition of the phrase is introduced by the word “includes.” See 2 U. S. C. § 1301(4), (6), (7); 18 U. S. C. § 2266(3)-(4). “[T]he word ‘includes’ is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation.” 2A Singer §47:7, p. 305 (some internal quotation marks omitted). Thus “[a] term whose statutory definition declares what it ‘includes’ is more susceptible to extension of meaning . . . than where” — as in §802(44) — “the definition declares what a term ‘means.’ ” Ibid. See also Groman v. Commissioner, 302 U. S. 82, 86 (1937) (“[W]hen an exclusive definition is intended the word ‘means’ is employed,... whereas here the word used is ‘includes.’”).

Burgess’ fourth example is also inapposite. The definition of “debtor’s principal residence” in the Bankruptcy Code, he notes, does not repeat the word “debtor,” itself a discretely defined term. See 11 U. S. C. § 101(13), (13A) (2000 ed., Supp. V). Section 101(13A) states: “The term ‘debtor’s principal residence’ — (A) means a residential structure, including incidental property, without regard to whether that structure is attached to real property; and (B) includes an individual condominium or cooperative unit, a mobile or manufactured home, or trailer.” That definition, unlike 21 U. S. C. § 802(44), is incomplete on its face because nothing in the definition of “debtor’s principal residence” elucidates the word “debtor’s.” Given that void and 11 U. S. C. § 101(13A)’s placement in the Bankruptcy Code, it is reasonable to assume that Congress wanted courts to read the phrase “debtor’s principal residence” in light of the separate definition of[*132] “debtor.” Indeed, a contrary reading would yield the absurd result that every residential structure is a “debtor’s principal residence.”

At most, therefore, Burgess’ fourth example illustrates the importance of considering context in applying canons of statutory construction. There may well be other examples lurking in the United States Code of nested terms that draw their meaning from two different statutory provisions without repeating one term in the definition of the other. But “felony drug offense” is not among them.

4

The fall definition stated:

“For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 'felony drug offense’ means an offense that is a felony under any provision of this title or any other Federal law that prohibits or restricts conduct relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant or stimulant substances or a felony under any law of a State or a foreign country that prohibits or restricts conduct relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant or stimulant substances.” National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, § 6452(a)(2), 102 Stat. 4371.
5

The examples provided by Burgess of such atypical categorization, Brief for Petitioner 22, all carry maximum sentences of exactly one year. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-701(0(5) (West 2001), 13-3405(B)(1) (West Supp. 2007); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2925.11(C) (Lexis 2007 Cum. Supp.), 2929.14(A)(5) (Lexis Supp. 2007); N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 15A-1340.17, 90-95(d) (Lexis 2007).