21 U.S.C. § 962

Second or subsequent offenses

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

(a) Term of imprisonment and fine

Any person convicted of any offense under this subchapter is, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, punishable by a term of imprisonment twice that otherwise authorized, by twice the fine otherwise authorized, or by both. If the conviction is for an offense punishable under section 960(b) of this title, and if it is the offender’s second or subsequent offense, the court shall impose, in addition to any term of imprisonment and fine, twice the term of supervised release otherwise authorized.

(b) Determination of status

For purposes of this section, a person shall be considered convicted of a second or subsequent offense if, prior to the commission of such offense, one or more prior convictions of such person for a felony drug offense have become final.

Section 851 of this title shall apply with respect to any proceeding to sentence a person under this section.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title III, § 1012, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1290; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §§ 225(b), 505, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2030, 2070; Pub. L. 99–570, title I, §§ 1004(a), 1005(c), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–6; Pub. L. 103–322, title IX, § 90105(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1988.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “one or more prior convictions of such person for a felony drug offense have become final” for “one or more prior convictions of him for a felony under any provision of this subchapter or subchapter I of this chapter or other law of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant or stimulant drugs, have become final”.

1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–570, § 1005(c), amended Pub. L. 98–473, § 225. See 1984 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 99–570, § 1004(a), substituted “term of supervised release” for “special parole term”.

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–473, § 225(b), which directed amendment of this section effective Nov. 1, 1987 (see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473 set out as an Effective Date note under section 3551 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure) was omitted in the general amendment of section 225 of Pub. L. 98–473 by Pub. L. 99–570, § 1005(c).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–473, § 505, inserted references to laws of a State or of a foreign country.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by section 1004(a) of Pub. L. 99–570 effective on date of taking effect of section 3583 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Nov. 1, 1987), see section 1004(b) of Pub. L. 99–570 set out as a note under section 841 of this title.

Effective 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 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: United States v. Jimmy Lee Stuckey, Jr., 220 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Jimmy Lee Stuckey, Jr., 220 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “21 U.S.C. §§ 962 (b) (1988), amended by Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.”

United States v. Eleazar Garcia, 954 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “The government asserted in the information that Garcia was eligible for an enhanced sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 962 . The citation to § 962 was in error — the statute authorizing the government to use prior convictions to enhance a sentence for the offenses of which Garcia was…”

United States v. Orestes Luciano Abreu, United States of Am. v. James David Thornbrugh, 962 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “” See 21 U.S.C. § 962 (a) (1988) (emphasis added).”

United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “He points to 21 U.S.C. § 962 (providing enhancement for “second or subsequent” convictions under statutes prohibiting importation and exportation of controlled substances), which uses the same enhancing language for a “second or subsequent conviction,” but which goes on to say:…”

United States v. Milton Tremble, 933 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “§ 960 (b)(2) (enhancement where pri- or offense was “a felony under any other provision o/this subchapter or subchapter I of this chapter or other law of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to narcotic drugs”) (emphasis added); 21 U.S.C. § 962 (b)…”

United States v. Edward Rodriguez, A/K/A Rick, Thomas J. Albernaz, Peter Smigowski, & William John Martins, 612 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1980). “The two Justices argued that certiorari should have been granted on an unrelated ground, but that the consecutive sentence issue was correctly decided by the Fourth Circuit.”

United States v. Joseph M. Craveiro, 907 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1990). “§ 849 (a) (1982) (repealed 1984) (enhanced sentence for dangerous special drug offender based on similar criteria); Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C. § 962 (1982) (double penalties for second or subsequent conviction, as established by procedure set forth in…”

United States v. Florencia Y. Walker (92-3135) & Tanya M. Powell (92-3136), 1 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 1993). “Count 24 charged Powell and Walker with importation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 962 (a), 21 U.S.C. §§ 960 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.”

United States v. De La Cruz, 998 F.3d 508 (1st Cir. 2021). “§ 70506 (a)-(b); see also 21 U.S.C. § 962 (b). Congress enacted 21 U.”

United States v. Garland Claude Cochran, 883 F.2d 1012 (11th Cir. 1989). “§ 960 (b)(1) (West 1981) (prescribing penalties for importation of narcotics); 21 U.S. C.A. § 962(a) (West 1981) (enhancement); 21 U.”

United States v. Otis Trammel, Jr., 583 F.2d 1166 (10th Cir. 1978). “§ 952 (a), and conspiracy to import heroin, 21 U.S. C.A. §§ 962(a), 963 (1970). Trammel was tried jointly with two co-defendants, Edwin Lee Roberts and Joseph Freeman.”

United States v. Kwabena Osei, 107 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1997). “Osei was indicted the following month for importation of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 962 (a), and for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— 21 U.S.C. § 962(a) — 2 cases

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.