Opinion ID: 2723746
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Possession for Sale

Text: First, Roman-Suaste relies on Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678, and its predecessor cases, reading them as taking a common-sense view—as opposed to a counterintuitive or unorthodox one—of “illicit trafficking.” He then argues that possession for sale under CHSC § 11359 can cover “distribution for insignificant payment, or payment 2 Marijuana is one of the many controlled substances scheduled under the CSA. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(6); 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(23). ROMAN-SUASTE V. HOLDER 7 for social, medical, or family purposes,” none of which amount to “illicit trafficking” under his reading of the cases. But Moncrieffe itself made clear that “[t]he presence of remuneration would mean that paragraph (4)”—the exception for distributing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration that Roman-Suaste attempts to rely upon—“is not implicated.” Id. at 1686. Roman-Suaste’s interpretation ignores the explicit definition of “drug trafficking crime,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), a form of “illicit trafficking,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). This definition instructs us to consider whether the offense is punishable as a felony under the CSA. See Moncrieffe, 133 S. Ct. at 1685. Under the CSA, possession with intent to distribute is always punishable as a felony where remuneration is involved. See id. at 1686. A “sale,” as commonly understood, contemplates a transfer in exchange for money or some other form of remuneration, and California case law confirms this understanding. See People v. Lazenby, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 541, 543 (Ct. App. 1992). In addition, because “possession for sale” under CHSC § 11359 requires knowing possession and an intent to sell the marijuana, this offense’s mens rea requirement corresponds perfectly with the CSA’s “possession with intent to distribute” offense, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). Because “possession for sale” under CHSC § 11359 necessarily comprises only possession with intent to distribute marijuana in exchange for remuneration, convictions under that provision categorically qualify as aggravated felonies. 8 ROMAN-SUASTE V. HOLDER