21 U.S.C. § 846
Attempt and conspiracy
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21,356
cases (2,084 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: United States v. Brooks
United States v. Brooks (2008)
“Specifically, the Defendants were each convicted of a single count of conspiracy to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (the "Count 1 crack conspiracy"); V.”
United States v. Thomas Norman (2019)
“On the basis of his prior conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 , the court applied an effective six-level enhancement to Norman’s sentence under United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.”
United States v. Green (2010)
“OPINION DAVIS, Circuit Judge: Appellant Courtney Omar Boyd ("Boyd") was convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia on two counts of a multi-count indictment: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and…”
United States v. James Romans (2016)
“DENNIS, Circuit Judge: The defendants, James Romans, Bajune Moseby, Kevin Harden, and Terrance Booker, were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846 . The district court sentenced Romans to…”
United States v. Roger Benton (87-5355) And, Marion D. Campbell (87-5361), Defendants (1988)
“§ 1951 , 1 and one *1459 count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 846 . 2 Campbell was acquitted of the Hobbs Act violations, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the conspiracy to distribute drugs count under 21 U.”
United States v. Juan Rivera-Constantino (2015)
“RIVERA-CONSTANTINO SUMMARY** Criminal Law Affirming a sentence for illegal reentry, the panel held that a prior federal conviction for conspiring to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1), constitutes a prior conviction for “conspiring[ ] .”
United States v. William J. Osborne, Thomas E. Hanna and Joseph Urbano, Jr., Also Known as Toby Urbano (1991)
“ollowing issues: (1) Are the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to Osborne and Urbano’s convictions, considering that the conspiracy commenced prior to the effective date of the Guidelines and continued thereafter; (2) was the trial court’s action in imposing a term of supervised…”
United States v. Vargas (2023)
“After agreeing to meet the agent in a Wal-Mart parking lot to carry out the transaction, Vargas and his co-conspirator were arrested.”
United States v. Zimmian Tabb (2020)
“05(2) and federal narcotics conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 constitute predicate offenses for purposes of the career offender sentencing enhancement of the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.”
United States v. Marvin Baker (2005)
“To support a conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 , the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an agreement between the defendant and one or more persons, (2) the object of which is an offense under Title 21 of the United States Code.”
United States v. Edison Jordan (1990)
“ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant Edison Jordan pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of *624 21 U.S.C. § 846 . He was sentenced on May 11, 1988 to 70 months imprisonment, a five year term of supervised release, and a…”
United States v. Martinez-Cruz (2016)
“2 Application Note 5 for his previous conviction for Conspiracy to Possess a Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute in Violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . Martinez-Cruz contends that this was error, because Application Note 5 uses the term “conspiring” without defining it,…”
— 21 U.S.C. § 846(b)(1)(A) — 4 cases
Moore v. United States (2023)
Moore v. United States (2023)
RODRIGUEZ v. United States (2022)
Moody v. United States (2023)
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.