Opinion ID: 4519774
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to research statutes

Text: Mr. Waldron argues his counsel failed to research and challenge the statutes underlying his convictions—21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (Claims 9 and 10). The district court rejected Mr. Waldron’s argument that § 841(a), which prohibits possession of a controlled substance “with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense,” does not include intent to sell. See United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 372 (10th Cir. 1985) (equating “intent to distribute” with intent “to sell, deliver, or otherwise distribute”); United States v. Johnson, 495 F.2d 242, 244 (10th Cir. 1974) (referencing “intent to sell a controlled substance as required by 21 U.S.C. 10 § 841(a)”). Based on this court’s foregoing precedent, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s interpretation of § 841(a). The district court also rejected Mr. Waldron’s Commerce Clause challenge to § 922(g), again citing Tenth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Urbano, 563 F.3d 1150, 1154 (10th Cir. 2009). Apart from his challenge’s lack of merit, Mr. Waldron presents no substantive argument in his brief. See Aplt. Br. at 22. He is not entitled to a COA on this issue.