Opinion ID: 2975286
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Illicit Trafficking” Approach

Text: Under the “illicit trafficking” approach, a state drug conviction is an aggravated felony if it is (1) a felony under state law, and (2) contains a trafficking element. Garcia-Echaverria, 376 F.3d at 512; Gerbier, 280 F.3d at 299. Here, there is no question that Mendieta-Robles’s conviction under ORC § 2925.03(A)(1) was a felony. The parties dispute, however, whether his conviction contains a trafficking element. Mendieta-Robles’s conviction does not contain a trafficking element. A trafficking element involves the “unlawful trading or dealing of a controlled substance.” Garcia-Echaverria, 376 F.3d at 513 (citing Gerbier, 280 F.3d at 305). “Essential to the concept of trading or dealing is activity of a business or merchant nature, thus excluding simple possession or transfer without consideration.” Steele v. Blackman, 236 F.3d 130, 135 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As already noted, ORC § 3719.01(AA) defines “sale” extremely broadly to include delivery, barter, exchange, transfer, or even gift. Thus, an individual may be convicted under ORC § 2925.03(A)(1) without the offered transfer being commercial in nature—Mendieta-Robles could merely have offered to gift 1,000 grams of cocaine. Consistent with this, neither possession nor exchange is a prerequisite to punishment under ORC § 2925.03(A)(1). Chandler, 846 N.E.2d at 1236-37. The Attorney General argues that Mendieta-Robles’s conviction falls within the definition -7- No. 06-3467 Mendieta-Robles v. Gonzales of “illicit trafficking” because either portion of the statute—selling or merely offering to sell cocaine—is, at least, “an attempt to sell cocaine for consideration—i.e. unlawful trading or dealing for profit.” (Att’y Gen. Br. 10 (underline omitted).) This argument, however, ignores ORC § 3719.01(AA), which defines “sale” to include gift—a form of transfer that does not require consideration. See, e.g., Guethlein v. Ohio State Liquor Control Comm., No. 05AP-888, 2006 WL 827434, at  (Ohio App. Mar. 30, 2006) (“The usual and customary meaning of ‘gift’ is a ‘voluntary transfer of property to another made gratuitously and without consideration.’” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 688 (6th ed. 1990))). Accordingly, an individual may be convicted under ORC § 2925.03(A)(1) without trading or dealing in a controlled substance for profit. Here, neither the relevant documents nor judicially noticeable facts indicate whether Mendieta-Robles engaged in commercial trading or dealing of cocaine. Mendieta-Robles’s conviction is therefore insufficient to establish that the underlying crime involved “illicit trafficking.” See, e.g., Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d at 908 (“[I]f the statute and the judicially noticeable facts would allow the defendant to be convicted of an offense other than that defined as a qualifying offense . . . , then the conviction does not qualify as a predicate offense.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, under the “illicit trafficking” approach, his conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony.