Circuit split · criminal law

Whether the term 'cocaine base' in 21 U.S.C. § 841's statutory mandatory minimums refers only to crack cocaine or to all chemical forms of cocaine base

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

United States v. Edwards397 F3D 570
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals · February 11, 2005
“We noted in Adams the existence of a circuit split on the scope of the term “cocaine base” for purposes of the statutory mínimums but declined to take a position: “The interpretation of ‘cocaine base’ within 21 U.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →

The provision at issue

“(a) Unlawful acts Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally— (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or (2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance. (b) Penalties Except as otherwise provided in section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as …”

Read the full section →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

On the other side · 11th Cir.Munoz-Realpe21 F.3d 375
“Munoz-Realpe reasoned that by allowing the Guidelines amendment to take effect, “Congress has given its imprimatur to the new definition of ‘cocaine base’ ” for purposes of the statute.” — United States v. Edwards, acknowledging the split
On the other side · 3d Cir.Barbosa271 F.3d 467
Declined to followAdams125 F.3d 592
“We noted in Adams the existence of a circuit split on the scope of the term “cocaine base” for purposes of the statutory mínimums but declined to take a position: “The interpretation of ‘cocaine base’ within 21 U.S.C.” — United States v. Edwards, acknowledging the split
DiscussedReddrick90 F.3d 1282
“We reiterated Booker’s holding in Reddrick, 90 F.3d at 1282 , but Reddrick raised a Guidelines issue only and did not address the statute’s mandatory minimum sentence.” — United States v. Edwards, acknowledging the split
DiscussedEarnest129 F.3d 916
DiscussedHall109 F.3d 1236
“Hall unequivocally states that Booker defined “cocaine base” as “crack” for purposes of § 841.” — United States v. Edwards, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:: Booker
Statutes:: 21 U.S.C. § 841 ·; 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) ·; 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) ·; 21 U.S.C. § 960(b) ·; 21 U.S.C. § 960

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.