Court Opinion

ID: 9494841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:48:21.350587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:39.534836
License: Public Domain

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in all of the majority’s opinion, except for Part 111(A), wherein the majority rejects Cannady’s claim that his indictment was defective because it failed to allege drug quantity. For the reasons explained in United States v. Benenhaley, 281 F.3d 423, 2002 WL 242337 (4th Cir.) (Luttig, J., dissenting), I believe that the majority’s view that “drug quantity is not an element of § 841(b)(1)(C) violations,” majority op. at 11, is incorrect.