U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 40— IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS

18 U.S.C. § 848

Effect on State law

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985). · cites it 2× “I am willing to assume, arguendo, that the 1981 conviction for importation of marihuana is a lesser included offense of the charges for violating 18 U. S. C. § 848 . As noted ante, at 788, 791-793, the Government both alleged and presented evidence that Garrett's violation of §…”
Bruce Carneil Webster v. Charles A. Daniels, 784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Juan Garza had been sentenced to death in federal court under 18 U.S.C. § 848 (e). After exhausting both his direct appeals and his opportunity for collateral relief under section 2255, Garza No.”
Cnty. of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 165 Cal. App. 4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “9 In rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the local ordinances were invalid because they were in “direct and positive conflict” with the federal law, the Southern Blasting court concluded that “[t]he ‘direct and positive conflict’ language in 18 U.S.C. § 848 simply restates…”
Wesley Purkey v. United States, 964 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2020). “He had been convicted on a number of charges, including three counts of killing in fur- therance of a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 848 (e). The wrinkle was this: the murders in question had occurred in Mexico, and he had never been charged or…”
United States v. Rigoberto Moya-Gomez Celestino Orlando Estevez Amado Raphael Leon Adalberto Herrera & Menelao Orlando Estevez, 860 F.2d 706 (7th Cir. 1988). “§§ 1961-1968 , and the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute, 18 U.S.C. § 848 , under which Orlando was convicted.”
United States v. Hammer, 564 F.3d 628 (3d Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “The district court refused to impanel a capital jury, concluding that the statute under which Stitt had been convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 848 , had been amended since his initial sentencing and no longer provided a procedure for impaneling a new jury for reconsideration of a death…”
United States v. David Ronald Chandler, A/K/A Ronnie Chandler, 996 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1993). “§ 1958 is a lesser included offense of 18 U.S.C. § 848 (e). 9 . The government claims that there were 58 jurors in the venire.”
United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271 (1st Cir. 1996). “As to Fitzgerald and Houl-ihan, Judge Young imposed contingent sentences of life imprisonment, to take effect “only if the sentence on count 19 [which charged a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 848 ] is reversed [or] otherwise dismissed.”
United States v. Justin Rone, United States of Am. v. Roy Dupont Little, 598 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1979). “2d 168 (1977), are inapposite in that the statute involved therein, 18 U.S.C. § 848 , reflects a comprehensive penalty structure, a structure not found in the Racketeering Act.”
United States v. Glynn, 578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “§ 1959 (a)(l)-(2), murder in connection with drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 848 (e)(1)(A) and murder through use of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.”
Bridges v. Kentucky Stone Co., Inc., 425 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. 1981). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] 18 U.S.C. § 848 (1976). [2] The Restatement reads in pertinent part: "§ 520.”
United States v. Clarence Rice, 699 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2012). “; see 18 U.S.C. § 848 . The Supreme Court ruled that in the CCE context the jury needed to agree unanimously on which of several alleged criminal acts were part of the charged offense since that statute makes each violation in the underlying series an element of the offense.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
18 U.S.C. § 848(b)(2)(A): 1 case
United States v. Stand. (D.D.C. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.