# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 25 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ch arl es W ol fe, al so kn own as C hu ck W ol fe

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 25 36

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ch arl es W ol fe, al so kn own as C hu ck W ol fe

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 19
Fi le d: Aug us t 6 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, STRAS, an d KOBES, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ch arl es W ol fe ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de n i a l o f h is m ot io ns to di sm is s 1

in di ct m en ts fo r co ns pi racy, se e 21 U.S.C. § 84 6, to vi ol at e th e Co nt ro ll ed Su bs ta nc e

Ana lo gu e Act (“ Ana lo gu e Act” ), se e id

. §§ 80 2 an d 84 1. He al so ap pe al s th e di st ric t

co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n in li min e pr ev en ti ng hi m fro m pr es en ti ng an ad vi ce-o fco un se l d efen se at t ria l. W e aff irm.

W ol fe cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve di sm is se d th e in di ct m en ts

be cau se th e Ana lo gu e Act is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e. W e rev ie w t he de ni al of a

mo t i o n t o di sm is s an in di ct m en t de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Aski a , 89 3 F.3 d 11 1 0

, 11 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 8 )

. The Ana lo gu e Act st at es th at “ [a] co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

an al og ue sh al l, to th e ex te nt in te nd ed fo r hu man co ns um pt io n, be tre at ed

, fo r th e

pu rp os es of an y Fed eral la w as a c o n tro ll ed su bs ta nc e in sc he du le I.” 21 U.S.C.
§ 81 3. A co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e an al og ue is a su bs ta nc e th at is “ su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar”

to a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e in sc he du le I or II wit h res pe ct to ei th er it s c h e mi cal

st ru ct ur e or it s “ st im

ul an t, de pr es s a n t

, or ha ll uc in og en ic effe ct .” 21 U.S.C.
§ 8 02 (3 2) (A).

The Hon or ab le Aud rey J. Fl ei ss ig

, Uni te s St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-W ol fe co nt en ds th at th e ph ras e “ su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar” ren de rs th e act

uncons tit uti on al ly va gu e be cau se it “ le nd s it se lf to arb it rary en fo rcem en t an d do es no t

pu t an in di vi du al of av erag e in te ll ig en ce on no ti ce of w h a t s u bs ta nc es are il le ga l.”

H e rel ie s on Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , in whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t vo id ed th e

res id ua l cl au se of t h e A r med Care er Cri m in al Act (“ ACCA”) as un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

va gu e. 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51

, 25 56 -5 7 (2 01 5)

. “ The sa m e va gu en es s an d arb it rari ne ss , th e

sa m e in ab il it y to di sc ern wha t th e or di na ry ve rs io n of an of fen se lo o k s l i k e th at pl ag ue s th e [ACCA],” he arg ue s, “ ex is ts wit hi n th e Ana lo gu e Act.” Bu t we reject ed

th is ve ry arg um en t i n a n a pp eal br ou gh t by Wolf e’s co -co ns pi rat or s. Uni te d S ta te s

v. Pal mer , 91 7 F.3 d 10 35

, 10 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 )

. I n Pa lmer

, we de te rm in ed th at

Jo hn so n di d no t affe c t pr io r pr eced en t up ho ld in g th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e

Ana lo gu e Act

. Id .; se e al so McFad

de n v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 22 98

, 23 06 -0 7
(2 01 5) (h ol di ng th at th e Ana lo gu e Act is no t un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e); Uni te d St at es

v. Ca rl so n , 81 0 F.3 d 54 4, 55 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (rejec ti ng th e a rg um en t th at “ th e

Ana lo gu e Act is un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se it do es no t pr ov id e no ti ce of whi ch act s are
cri m in al an d pe rm it s arb it rary en fo rcem en t co nt rary to the D ue Pro ces s Cl au se ”). The

di st ric t co ur t t he refo re p ro pe rly den ie d Wol fe’s m ot io ns to di sm is s.

W ol fe al so cl ai m s th at he sh ou ld ha ve be en pe rm it te d to pr es en t an ad vi ce-o fco un se l d e f

e n s e a t tri al

. “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a pr of fere d le ga l

de fen se de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Y an Na in g , 82 0 F.3 d 10 06

, 10 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ).

“ A de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to a jury in st ru ct io n on an affi rm at iv e de fen s e i f he can
de m on st rat e an un de rlyin g ev id en ti ary fo u n d a t i o n fo r each of it s el em en ts .” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ The ev id en ce of each el em en t m us t be su ffi ci en t

fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d in th e de fen da nt ’s fav or .” Id

. “ [T]o rel y up on th e ad vi ce

of c o u n s e l in hi s de fen se , a de fen da nt m us t sh ow th at he : (i) fu ll y di sc lo se d al l

m at eri al fact s to hi s at to rn ey be fo re se ek in g ad vi ce; an d (ii ) act ua l l y rel ie d on hi s

co un se l’s ad vi ce in th e g oo d fa it h b el ie f th at hi s co nd uc t was leg al .” Uni te d St at es

v. Rice , 44 9 F .3d 88 7, 8 97 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

-3

-In su pp or t of hi s pr of fere d de fen se , W ol fe su bm it te d to th e di st ric t co ur t le tt ers

fro m hi s fo rm er at to rn ey an al y zi ng wh et he r th e su bs ta nc es W ol fe co ns pi red to

di st rib ut e were co ns id ered co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es “ un de r th e va ry in g le ga l pa ram et ers

us ed by each in di vi du al st at e in de fin in g Sch ed ul ed su bs ta nc es .” He cl ai m s th at hi s
rel ia nc e on th os e le tt ers , whi ch in di cat ed th at th e su bs ta nc es were le ga l in so m e st at es

an d un de r so m e fed eral la ws, sh ou ld ha ve en ti tl ed hi m to an ad vi ce-o f-co un se l

de fen se

.

Bu t a reas on ab le jury co ul d no t ha ve fo un d th at W ol fe bo th (1 ) fu ll y di sc lo se d

al l m at eri al fact s to hi s at to rn ey be fo re se ek in g th e le ga l op in io n an d (2 ) rel ie d on th at

op in io n in “ th e go od fai th be li ef th at hi s co nd uc t was le ga l.” Each le tt er, fo r in st an ce,

st at ed th at it di d no t of

fer an op in io n ab ou t th e “ sa fet y or effi cacy” of th e su bs ta nc es

or “ reco m

m en d th em fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n.” Nev ert h e l e s s , th e co ns pi racy

de pe nd ed on pe op le pu rch as in g th e su bs ta nc es fo r hu m an co ns um pt io n. Thu s, ei th er

W ol fe fai le d to di sc lo se to hi s at to rn ey th at th e su bs ta nc es wou ld be us ed fo r hu m an

co ns um pt io n or W ol fe fai le d to rel y on hi s at to rn ey ’s r e c om m en da ti on no t to

di st rib ut e th e su bs ta nc es fo r th e pu rp os e of hu m an co ns um pt io n. The le tt ers al so do

no t m en ti on th e Ana lo gu e Act an d sa y no th in g ab ou t wha t in fo rm at io n W ol fe

pr ov id ed to hi s at to rn ey in co nn ect io n wit h hi s req ue st fo r th e le tt ers

. Eve n whe n th e
di st ric t co ur t ga ve W ol fe th e op po rtu ni ty to pr ov id e a “ fu ll pr of fer of ev id en ce to be

of fer ed

, inclu di ng th e te st im on y of [h is fo rm er at to rn ey ] an d th e in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed

to co un se l in co nn ect io n wit h th e op in io n,” Wo lfe of fere d no ad di ti on al ev id en ce.

Th e di st ric t co ur t th eref

or e pr op erl y gr an te d th e Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n in l i m i n e t o

pr oh ib it W ol fe fro m

rai si ng an ad vi ce-o f-co un se l d efen se at t ria l. 2

W ol fe als o clai m s th at he “ sh ou ld ha ve be en al lo wed to pr es en t evi de nc e of 2

th e ad vi ce he rece iv ed an d w h a t i mp a ct th at [ad vi ce] ha d on hi s m en s rea fo r th e cri m e al le ge d.” To th e ex te nt th at th is is an arg um en t fo r ad m is si on of th e le tt ers in to

ev i d en ce un rel at ed to hi s pr of fere d ad vi ce-o f-co un se l de fen se , ou r rev ie w is fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ji ra k

, 72 8 F.3 d 80 6, 81 3 ( 8 Ci r. 20 13 ). t h

The di st ric t co ur t co n c l u d e d th at th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e le tt ers was “ far

-4

-Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

ou twei gh ed by th ei r pr ejud ic ia l im pa ct an d th e r i s k of m is le ad in g th e jury.” Thi s

co nc lu si on su pp or ts th e ex cl us io n of th e le tt ers fro m ev id en ce, se e Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3,

an d is on e th at we acco rd “ gr eat de fere nc e” to th e di st ric t co ur t whe n rev ie win g. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Pump ki n Se ed

, 57 2 F.3 d 55 2, 55 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). App lying th is
de fere nt ia l st an da rd an d co ns id eri ng ou r ab ove dis cu ssi on abou t th e m an y ev id en ti ary is su es pr es en te d by th e le tt ers , we co nc lu d e t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n b y

ex cl ud in g t he m

fro m ev id en ce.

-5

-