Opinion ID: 767081
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statutory Scheme to Regulate Certain Transactions Involving a Listed Chemical

Text: 18 Daas argues that further evidence of congressional intent to exclude mixtures from the scope of S 841(d)(2) is the existence of a distinct regulatory scheme targeting transactions like those underlying Daas's conviction. That statutory scheme, enacted in 1996 as part of the CMCA, requires reporting and record-keeping for regulated transactions -defined to include transactions involving lawful drugs containing listed chemicals such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. See 21 U.S.C. SS 802(39)(iv)(I)(aa) & (bb), 11 821-22, 830, 842, 843. Neither Daas nor the government disputes that Daas was subject to these reporting and record-keeping requirements. Rather, the parties differ as to whether Daas was subject to criminal penalties under S 841(d)(2) in addition to those authorized under the reporting and record-keeping requirements. 19 First, Daas argues, the provisions of S 802(39)(iv)(I)(aa) and (bb) describe transactions exactly like those at issue here -i.e., transactions in lawful medication containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine -and subjects them to the reporting and record-keeping requirements. This careful description is absent from S 841(d)(2) or any of its definitional provisions. Thus Congress was aware of the diversion of legal drugs to manufacture controlled substances. In Daas's view, the omission from S 841(d)(2) and its related provisions of reference to diverted lawful drugs suggests that Congress chose to address this problem by enacting the reporting and record keeping requirements. The descriptions in S 802(39)(iv)(I)(aa) and (bb), he contends, further underline that Congress drew a distinction between pure listed chemicals and lawful medication like Mini Thins and Pseudo Thins. Daas's arguments do not withstand scrutiny. 20 The regulatory scheme is not inconsistent with congressional intent to subject distributors like Daas to criminal penalties in addition to reporting and record-keeping requirements. Daas has cited no authority for the proposition that serious penalties for distributing certain substances and lesser penalties for regulatory violations are, or should be, mutually exclusive. Cf. United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122,136-38 (1975) (holding that the existence of regulatory penalties governing physicians who distribute methadone do not exempt physicians subject to those penalties from criminal prosecution for distributing a controlled substance); United States v. Urrutia, 897 F.2d 430, 431 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that two separate statutes prohibiting bank fraud and bank robbery, respectively, are not mutually exclusive, pointing out that nothing in the statutory language suggests otherwise); United States v. Wright, 742 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that two separate statutes prohibiting marijuana possession and marijuana cultivation, respectively, are not mutually exclusive), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984). 21 The regulatory provisions are not evidence of congressional intent to exempt distributors like Daas from criminal penalties under S 841(d)(2). Section 802(39)(iv)(I), subsections (aa) and (bb) were added to the Controlled Substances Act in 1996 as part of the CMCA. See 142 Cong. Rec. H11113 (September 25, 1996). Therefore, section 841(d)(2) pre-existed S 802(39)(iv)(I)(aa) and (bb) by eighteen years. Because the newer sections were enacted after the meaning ofS 841(d)(2) was established, it follows that S 802(39)(iv)(I)(aa) and (bb) do not enable Daas to create an ambiguity in S 841(d)(2). If, by enacting the CMCA in 1996, Congress had intended to exempt distributors like Daas from liability underS 841(d)(2), it would have amended S 841(d)(2) to make this intention clear. Otherwise, the court must presume that the original meaning of S 841(d)(2) is still valid. 22 Moreover, contrary to what Daas contends, S 843(a), subsections (8) 12 and (9), 13 are not mutually exclusive with a reading of S 841(d)(2) that encompasses Mini Thins and Pseudo Thins. First, no statutory language evidences any congressional intent that S 841(d)(2) and the regulatory provisions be mutually exclusive. Cf. Moore, 423 U.S. at 136-38; Urrutia, 897 F.2d at 431; Wright, 742 F.2d at 1219. Indeed, S 841(d)(2) defines a categorically distinct -and more serious -type of offense from those defined in the regulatory provisions. Second, because S 843(a), subsections (8) and (9) penalize conduct involving a listed chemical, Daas's contention that listed chemical excludes mixtures like Mini Thins and Pseudo Thins would make those subsections inapplicable to him. Thus the regulatory provisions do not evidence congressional intent to subject distributors like Daas to lesser penalties only. 23