U.S. Code » Title 21 » Chapter CHAPTER 13— DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT › Part Part D— Offenses and Penalties

21 U.S.C. § 849

Transportation safety offenses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Definitions

In this section—

“safety rest area” means a roadside facility with parking facilities for the rest or other needs of motorists.

“truck stop” means a facility (including any parking lot appurtenant thereto) that—

(A) has the capacity to provide fuel or service, or both, to any commercial motor vehicle (as defined in section 31301 of title 49), operating in commerce (as defined in that section); and

(B) is located within 2,500 feet of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways or the Federal-Aid Primary System.

(b) First offense

A person who violates section 841(a)(1) of this title or section 856 of this title by distributing or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance in or on, or within 1,000 feet of, a truck stop or safety rest area is (except as provided in subsection (b)) 11 So in original. Probably should refer to subsection (c). subject to—

(1) twice the maximum punishment authorized by section 841(b) of this title; and

(2) twice any term of supervised release authorized by section 841(b) of this title for a first offense.

(c) Subsequent offense

A person who violates section 841(a)(1) of this title or section 856 of this title by distributing or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance in or on, or within 1,000 feet of, a truck stop or a safety rest area after a prior conviction or convictions under subsection (a) 22 So in original. Probably should refer to subsection (b). have become final is subject to—

(1) 3 times the maximum punishment authorized by section 841(b) of this title; and

(2) 3 times any term of supervised release authorized by section 841(b) of this title for a first offense.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · 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 6× “See 21 U. S. C. § 849 . This conclusion as to Congress' intent is fortified by the legislative history.”
United States v. Nicholas Anthony Moccia, 681 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1982). · cites it 10× “He was sentenced under the “Dangerous Special Drug Offender” statute, 21 U.S.C. § 849 , to two concurrent fifteen-year terms.”
United States v. Randy Lamont Patterson AKA Randy Brown, Marcus Wayne Edmundson, Tony Burton, Don Grogans, & Billy Ray Brown, 819 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 9× “DANGEROUS SPECIAL DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCING Appellate review of dangerous special drug offender ("DSDO") sentencing decisions made pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 849 8 (1981) (repealed Nov. 1, 1986) is broader than review of usual sentencing.”
United States v. George Tom Darby, Constantine Yamanis, Vincent Calise, & Michael Yamanis, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984). · cites it 9× “court erred in imposing cumulative fines; (5) whether the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Michael Yamanis due to the circumstances of his arrest; (6) whether the presence of information of disputed accuracy in the presentence report violated Michael Yamanis' due…”
United States v. Everett Towers, 775 F.2d 184 (7th Cir. 1985). · cites it 8× “After a post-trial hearing, the district court determined that Towers was a Special Dangerous Drug Offender pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 849 (e)(2) and (e)(3). Towers was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for his conviction on the conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to…”
United States v. Thomas Reese, United States of Am. v. Linda Reese, 775 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 6× “Subsequent to trial, the government filed a request for a hearing under the Special Drug Offender Statute, 21 U.S.C. § 849 (1982), to determine whether Thomas Reese was a special drug offender.”
United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1980). · cites it 2× “" Section 3576 has a twin in 21 U. S. C. § 849 (h). This was enacted as § 409 (h) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub.”
Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381 (1980). · cites it 2× “…severe. See § 408 of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 848 (continuing criminal enterprise); §§ 409 (e) (2) and (3) of the Act, 21 U. S. C. §§ 849 (e) (2) and (3) (defining a special drug offender). [17] One might quarrel with our conclusion that Congress was aware of the distinction…”
United States v. Gordon, 852 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “§ 3575 (e)(2) and 21 U.S.C. § 849 (e)(2), and was intended to "embody[] the same considerations" as those statutes.”
United States v. Sutton, 415 F. Supp. 1323 (D.D.C. 1976). · cites it 10× “35, seeks to have the aforesaid sentence vacated on the grounds that: a) the sentencing statute is unconstitutional, b) in the instant case, the government failed to meet the notice requirements set forth in the statute, and c) insufficient evidence was presented to support the…”
United States v. Joseph M. Craveiro, 907 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “§ 3575 and 21 U.S.C. § 849 (a). In their place, the Act requires the United States Sentencing Commission to specify sentences at or near the maximum term authorized by statute for adult defendants convicted of crimes of violence or certain drug trafficking offenses, if they have…”
United States v. Arturo Munster-Ramirez, AKA David Otto Munster, 888 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 7× “§ 3575 (e)(2) (repealed 1984), and 21 U.S.C. § 849 (e)(2) (repealed 1984). These statutes defined “a substantial source of income” as an amount which for any period of one year or more exceeds the minimum wage, determined on the basis of a forty-hour week and fifty-week year, .”
Show all 85 citing cases →
— 21 U.S.C. § 849(a) — 1 case
United States v. Tramunti, 377 F. Supp. 6 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).
— 21 U.S.C. § 849(e) — 2 cases
United States v. Randy Lamont Patterson AKA Randy Brown, Marcus Wayne Edmundson, Tony Burton, Don Grogans, & Billy Ray Brown, 819 F.2d 1495 (9th Cir. 1987). “DANGEROUS SPECIAL DRUG OFFENDER SENTENCING Appellate review of dangerous special drug offender ("DSDO") sentencing decisions made pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 849 8 (1981) (repealed Nov. 1, 1986) is broader than review of usual sentencing.”
United States v. Rivera-Santiago, 872 F.2d 1073 (1st Cir. 1989).
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.