21 U.S.C. § 956

Exemption authority

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

(a) Individual possessing controlled substance(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney General may by regulation exempt from sections 952(a) and (b), 953, 954, and 955 of this title any individual who has a controlled substance (except a substance in schedule I) in his possession for his personal medical use, or for administration to an animal accompanying him, if he lawfully obtained such substance and he makes such declaration (or gives such other notification) as the Attorney General may by regulation require.(2) Notwithstanding any exemption under paragraph (1), a United States resident who enters the United States through an international land border with a controlled substance (except a substance in schedule I) for which the individual does not possess a valid prescription issued by a practitioner (as defined in section 802 of this title) in accordance with applicable Federal and State law (or documentation that verifies the issuance of such a prescription to that individual) may not import the controlled substance into the United States in an amount that exceeds 50 dosage units of the controlled substance.(b) Compound, mixture, or preparation

The Attorney General may by regulation except any compound, mixture, or preparation containing any depressant or stimulant substance listed in paragraph (a) or (b) of schedule III or in schedule IV or V from the application of all or any part of this subchapter if (1) the compound, mixture, or preparation contains one or more active medicinal ingredients not having a depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system, and (2) such ingredients are included therein in such combinations, quantity, proportion, or concentration as to vitiate the potential for abuse of the substances which do have a depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title III, § 1006, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1288; Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title VIII, § 872(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–707; Pub. L. 105–357, § 2(a), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3271.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Schedules I, III, IV, and V, referred to in text, are set out in section 812(c) of this title.

Amendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–277 and Pub. L. 105–357 amended subsec. (a) identically, designating existing provisions as par. (1), substituting “Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney General” for “The Attorney General”, and adding par. (2).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesFederal Minimum Requirement

Pub. L. 105–357, § 2(b), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3271, provided that: “Section 1006(a)(2) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act [21 U.S.C. 956(a)(2)], as added by this section, is a minimum Federal requirement and shall not be construed to limit a State from imposing any additional requirement.”

Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title VIII, § 872(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–707, enacted a provision substantially identical to that enacted by Pub. L. 105–357, § 2(b), set out above.

Jurisdiction of Secretary of Health and Human Services

Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title VIII, § 872(c), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–707, and Pub. L. 105–357, § 2(c), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3271, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall not be construed to affect the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1982–2015 · leading case: United States v. Garry Jordan, 810 F.2d 262 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Garry Jordan, 810 F.2d 262 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “1288 (codified at 21 U.S.C. § 956 (b) (1982)) (exemption nearly identical to § 202(d)).”

United States v. Roscoe Emory Dean, Jr., in Re United States of Am., 752 F.2d 535 (11th Cir. 1985). “Roscoe Dean, a former Georgia state senator, was tried and convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on three counts of conspiracy to import cocaine, marijuana, and methaqualone, in violation of 21 U.”

United States v. Roscoe Emory Dean, Jr., & John Thomas Bigley, 666 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1982). “and John Thomas Bigley were convicted after trial by jury on three counts of conspiracy to import cocaine, marijuana, and methaqualone in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 956 , 963. Bigley alone was convicted on one additional count of using a firearm in the commission of a federal…”

United States v. Arturo Esparza, 791 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2015). “On April 15, 2011, Esparza was indicted on one count of knowingly importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 956 and 960. Prior to trial, Esparza moved to exclude the Notice of Transfer/Release of Liability form and a printout of information stored in DMV computers…”

Wright v. State, 955 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “See 21 U.S.C. § 956 (1988). The regulation promulgated in connection with 21 U.”

Michael Scott Boyd v. State (Tex. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 21 U.S.C.A. § 956 (West 1999); 21 C.F.R. § 1301.”

United States v. Richard Ichihara, 385 F. App'x 656 (9th Cir. 2010). “§§ 841 (a)(1) and 846, and money laundering, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 956 (a)(1)(B)®. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.”

United States v. Bastidas, 28 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “§ 2 ; Count Eight: importation of in excess of 50 grams of “crack,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 956 (a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.”

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.