21 U.S.C. § 959

Possession, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substance

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

(a) Manufacture or distribution for purpose of unlawful importation

It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance in schedule I or II or flunitrazepam or a listed chemical intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe that such substance or chemical will be unlawfully imported into the United States or into waters within a distance of 12 miles of the coast of the United States.

(b) Manufacture or distribution of listed chemical for purpose of manufacture or unlawful importation of controlled substanceIt shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or distribute a listed chemical—(1) intending or knowing that the listed chemical will be used to manufacture a controlled substance; and(2) intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe that the controlled substance will be unlawfully imported into the United States.(c) Possession, manufacture, or distribution by person on board aircraftIt shall be unlawful for any United States citizen on board any aircraft, or any person on board an aircraft owned by a United States citizen or registered in the United States, to—(1) manufacture or distribute a controlled substance or listed chemical; or(2) possess a controlled substance or listed chemical with intent to distribute.(d) Acts committed outside territorial jurisdiction of United States

This section is intended to reach acts of manufacture or distribution committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title III, § 1009, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 99–570, title III, § 3161(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–94; Pub. L. 104–237, title I, § 102(a), (b), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3100; Pub. L. 104–305, § 2(b)(2)(A), Oct. 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 3807; Pub. L. 114–154, § 2, May 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 387; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, § 1012(b), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1546.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Schedules I and II, referred to in subsec. (a), are set out in section 812(c) of this title.

Amendments

2017—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 115–91 struck out “; venue” after “United States” in heading and “Any person who violates this section shall be tried in the United States district court at the point of entry where such person enters the United States, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” after “United States.” in text.

2016—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–154, § 2(2), substituted “It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance in schedule I or II or flunitrazepam or a listed chemical intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe that such substance or chemical will be unlawfully imported into the United States or into waters within a distance of 12 miles of the coast of the United States.” for “It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance in schedule I or II or flunitrazepam or listed chemical—

“(1) intending that such substance or chemical will be unlawfully imported into the United States or into waters within a distance of 12 miles of the coast of the United States; or

“(2) knowing that such substance or chemical will be unlawfully imported into the United States or into waters within a distance of 12 miles of the coast of the United States.”

Subsecs. (b) to (d). Pub. L. 114–154 added subsec. (b) and redesignated former subsecs. (b) and (c) as (c) and (d), respectively.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–305 inserted “or flunitrazepam” after “schedule I or II” in introductory provisions.

Pub. L. 104–237, § 102(a), inserted “or listed chemical” after “schedule I or II” in introductory provisions and “or chemical” after “substance” in pars. (1) and (2).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–237, § 102(b), inserted “or listed chemical” after “controlled substance” in pars. (1) and (2).

1986—Pub. L. 99–570 designated first sentence as subsec. (a) and inserted “or into waters within a distance of 12 miles of the coast of the United States” in pars. (1) and (2), added subsec. (b), and designated last two sentences as subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective on first day of seventh calendar month that begins after Oct. 26, 1970, see 1105(a) of Pub. L. 91–513, set out as a under section 951 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 183 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: United States v. Roberth Rojas, 812 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Roberth Rojas, 812 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 32× “After a three-week trial, a jury found four defendants, appellants here, guilty of conspiring to knowingly or intentionally import five or more kilograms of cocaine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 959 and 960, and all in violation of 21 U.”

United States v. Epskamp, 832 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 13× “We address two issues implicated by Epskamp’s various challenges: (1) the proper construction of 21 U.S.C. § 959 , particularly with respect to its extraterritorial application and whether it requires a defendant’s knowledge of the relevant jurisdictional nexus (i.”

United States v. Oral Thompson, 921 F.3d 263 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 12× “" 21 U.S.C. § 959 (b). 1 Congress explicitly addressed the extraterritorial reach of these crimes in the very next provision, § 959(c) : "Acts committed outside territorial jurisdiction of United States .”

United States v. Thompson, 197 F. Supp. 3d 143 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 17× “MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge Defendants Dwight Knowles and Oral George Thompson are charged in a one-count indictment with conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine on board…”

United States v. Ade Lawrence, 727 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 7× “Discussion On appeal, Appellants Lawrence and Parker argue that: (1) the substantive crime underlying the conspiracy charge— possession with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 959 (b) — was not in *391 tended to apply to possession of illicit substances aboard a…”

United States v. Lopesierra-Gutierrez, 708 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “TATEL, Circuit Judge: Samuel Santander Lopesierra-Gutier-rez, a Colombian national, was extradited for, charged with, and convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine with the knowl *198 edge or intent that it would be imported into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C.…”

United States v. Marciano Vasquez, 899 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 21 U.S.C. § 959 (d) ; United States v. Lawrence , 727 F.”

United States v. Khan Mohammed, 693 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “On May 15, 2008, a jury found Mohammed guilty of international drug trafficking, 21 U.S.C. §§ 959 (a)(1), (2), and drug trafficking with intent to provide financial support to a terrorist, id.”

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990). · cites it 2× “V) ("This section is intended to reach acts . . . committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"), the possession, manufacture, or distribution of a controlled substance for purposes of unlawful importation, see 21 U.”

United States v. William Michael Elam, Richard Victor Jennings, Jr., George Anthony Seek & William Lykergus Miller, Jr., 678 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1982). · cites it 3× “§ 952 (a) by importing large quantities of marijuana from Colombia and Mexico, to violate 21 U.S.C. § 959 by distributing the imported contraband and to violate 21 U.”

United States v. Andre Willis King, United States of Am. v. Fred Neil Powell, 552 F.2d 833 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 3× “Are the convictions of King and Powell for violating 21 U.S.C. § 959 (unlawful manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance for purposes of unlawful importation) unconstitutional since Congress’ legislative authority does not properly reach their activity outside the…”

United States v. Mejia, Rafael, 448 F.3d 436 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “On November 30, 1999, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia named Mejia and Rios in a one-count indictment that charged them with conspiring to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine with the knowledge and intent that such cocaine would be unlawfully imported…”

Show all 183 citing cases →

— 21 U.S.C. § 959(b) — 1 case

United States v. Ade Lawrence, 727 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2013). “Discussion On appeal, Appellants Lawrence and Parker argue that: (1) the substantive crime underlying the conspiracy charge— possession with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 959 (b) — was not in *391 tended to apply to possession of illicit substances aboard a…”

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.