21 U.S.C. § 813
Treatment of controlled substance analogues
A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.
For purposes of this section, evidence that a substance was not marketed, advertised, or labeled for human consumption, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish that the substance was not intended for human consumption.
Schedule I, referred to in subsec. (a), is set out in section 812(c) of this title.
2018—Pub. L. 115–271 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
1988—Pub. L. 100–690 substituted “any Federal law” for “this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 109
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: United States v. Earl Ramos
United States v. Earl Ramos (2016)
“§ 841 (a)(1), distribution of a controlled substance analogue (á-PVP), see 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 , 841(a)(1), possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (XLR-11), see 21 U.”
United States v. Reichenbach (1989)
“3207 -13 (1986), codified as 21 USC § 813 . In 1988, this language was modified so that § 813 now reads, after the word “treated,” — “for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.”
United States v. Mark Fisher, United States of America v. Devon Sutton, A.K.A. Devon Daniel Sutton, United States of Ame (2002)
“(1) Whether the Analogue Act 21 U.S.C. § 813 , as applied to GBL, is unconstitutionally vague in that it provides inadequate notice of illegal behavior and allows arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement? And (2) whether GBL is a controlled substance analogue of GHB? 6…”
United States v. Requena (2020)
“” 21 U.S.C. § 813 (a). 4 qualified as a controlled substance analogue.”
United States v. Scott Ansaldi, Rodney Dean Gates (2004)
“The jury was appropriately instructed that, under 21 U.S.C. § 813 , a controlled substance analogue is, to the extent intended for human consumption, considered to be a controlled substance.”
United States v. Samuel Scott Raymer (1991)
“§ 371 ; 3) count eight, distribution of MDMA, a Schedule I controlled substance analogue, 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 , 841(a)(1), on or about April 11, 1987; 4) count two, conspiracy to commit this offense, 21 U.”
McFadden v. United States (2015)
“3207 -13, 21 U.S.C. § 813 . We therefore must turn first to the statute that addresses controlled substances, the CSA.”
United States v. Demott (2018)
“Gambuzza and Snell were tried before a jury and convicted on Count 1, as well as on Count 2, which charged conspiracy to import a controlled substance analogue in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 , 960(a)(1) and (b)(3), and 963, and, in Gambuzza's case, on 19 counts of money…”
United States v. John Ways, Jr. (2016)
“See 21 U.S.C. § 813 (“A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.”
People v. Frantz (2005)
“§ 802 (32) (defining controlled substance ana *37 logue); 21 U.S.C. § 813 (controlled substance analogue shall be treated as a controlled substance); see also People v.”
United States v. David Augustine Desurra, and Sammy Lee Smith, United States of America v. Arthur Breaux, III (1989)
“PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, three defendants appeal convictions obtained pursuant to the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986, 21 U.S.C. § 813 . All three contend that the drug which they possessed was not a controlled substance analogue within the…”
United States v. Joann Mitcheltree (1991)
“3 Defendant was acquitted on count two, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance analogue, 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 & 846. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on count nine, another witness tampering count, and upon motion of the government that count was dismissed with…”
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.