21 U.S.C. § 852
Application of treaties and other international agreements
Nothing in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, or other treaties or international agreements shall be construed to limit the provision of treatment, education, or rehabilitation as alternatives to conviction or criminal penalty for offenses involving any drug or other substance subject to control under any such treaty or agreement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: United States v. Marciano Vasquez, 899 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Marciano Vasquez, 899 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2018). “§ 960(a)(1) (referencing the labeling, importation, exportation, and registration regulations in 21 U.S.C. §§ 852 , 952, 953, 957 ). Second, it prohibits "manfactur[ing], possess[ing] with intent to distribute, or distribut[ing] a controlled substance" in violation of § 959.”
United States v. William J. McCorkle, 321 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2003). “” 21 U.S.C. § 852 (n)(6)(B). This means that the only assets that are potentially immunized from forfeiture are those for which value has been given.”
Donna Ellis v. C. R. Bard, Inc., 311 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2002). “As outlined below, we conclude that the district court properly concluded that the defendants did not violate the FDCA provisions or its regulations at issue in this case and that Georgia’s learned intermediary rule is not preempted by them either.”
United States v. Pacheco, 727 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2013). “§ 963 ; and (4) importing heroin into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 852 and 960. Pacheco entered a straight guilty plea and was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release.”
United States v. Shabbir, 64 F. Supp. 2d 479 (D. Maryland 1999). “” 21 U.S.C. § 852 . “[LJabeling” is expansively defined, and includes “all labels and other written, printed or graphic matter (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or (2) accompanying such article.”
United States v. Mann, 140 F. Supp. 3d 513 (E.D.N.C. 2015). “Furthermore, a preindictment restraining order under 21 U.S.C. § 852 (e)(1)(B) “shall be effective' for not more than ninety days, unless extended by the court for good cause shown or unless an indictment .”
United States v. Marciano Vasquez (5th Cir. 2018). “§ 960(a)(1) (referencing the labeling, importation, exportation, and registration regulations in 21 U.S.C. §§ 852 , 952, 953, 957). Second, it prohibits “manfactur[ing], possess[ing] with intent to distribute, or distribut[ing] a controlled substance” in violation of § 959.”
United States v. Brandon Miguel Lewis (11th Cir. 2023). “The judgment also mis- takenly cites 21 U.S.C. § 852 , concerning international agreements, instead of the correct 21 U.”
Smith v. Payne (E.D. Ark. 2022). “She also requests nominal damages for the breach of the plea agreement or invasion of a right pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 852 . Id. Lastly, she requests the right to file “conditional appeals” on the issue of double jeopardy.”
United States v. Mayorga-Sanchez (5th Cir. 2003). “PER CURIAM:* Martha Mayorga-Sanchez pleaded guilty to count one of an indictment charging her with importation into the United States of more than 50 kilograms of marijuana and aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 852 , 960(a) and 960(b) and 18 U.”
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.