United States v. George Jefferson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10863
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant George Jefferson pleaded guilty to knowingly and intentionally importing 4.65 kg of a mixture containing methamphetamine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960.
- Jefferson contended he believed the substance was marijuana and did not know the exact drug type or quantity at the border.
- The district court applied Ninth Circuit precedent holding the government need only prove the defendant knew he imported some controlled substance (not the specific type or quantity) and imposed the 10-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(H).
- Jefferson argued Alleyne and Flores‑Figueroa required the government to prove knowledge of drug type and quantity as elements for mandatory-minimum exposure.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed, holding Alleyne/Flores‑Figueroa did not overrule circuit precedent that mens rea as to type/quantity is not required for § 960 penalties to apply.
Issues
| Issue | Jefferson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne requires knowledge of drug type/quantity as mens rea for § 960(b) mandatory minimums | Alleyne makes any fact increasing a mandatory minimum an element; therefore defendant must know type and quantity | Alleyne governs who decides and burden of proof, not the statutory mens rea; § 960’s mens rea remains limited to knowing importation of a controlled substance | Court: Alleyne/Apprendi do not change that § 960 does not require knowledge of type/quantity for mandatory-minimum application; affirmed |
| Whether Flores‑Figueroa mandates applying § 960(a)’s “knowingly” to elements in § 960(b) | Flores‑Figueroa’s grammatical rule requires scienter to attach to each statutory element (so knowledge must extend to type/quantity) | § 960’s structure separates mens rea (subsection a) from penalty ranges (subsection b); Flores‑Figueroa’s rule is inapplicable | Court: Flores‑Figueroa is inapposite because statute’s text/structure differ; scienter need not attach to type/quantity |
| Whether precedent (Carranza and related Ninth Circuit cases) remains binding post‑Alleyne/Flores‑Figueroa | Jefferson: those precedents were effectively abrogated by subsequent Supreme Court decisions | Government: Ninth Circuit precedent remains controlling absent an intervening higher authority clearly irreconcilable | Court: Carranza and related precedent stand; no intervening higher authority clearly irreconcilable; government need not prove knowledge of type/quantity |
| Whether other Supreme Court decisions (e.g., X‑Citement, McFadden) compel a different result | Jefferson: other statutory‑construction and scienter principles (Staples, lenity, X‑Citement, McFadden) support requiring mens rea as to type/quantity | Government: those cases are factually/textually distinct; no constitutional or interpretive necessity to read mens rea into § 960(b) | Court: those authorities do not clearly overrule or displace Ninth Circuit precedent; result affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores‑Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (grammatical rules can extend scienter to statutory objects)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond prescribed maximum must be proven to a jury)
- X‑Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (court read mens rea to apply to age element in child‑pornography statute)
- United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2002) (government need only prove defendant knew he imported some controlled substance)
- United States v. Salazar, 5 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 1993) (penalties under § 960(b) may apply without proving knowledge of type/quantity)
- United States v. Lopez‑Martinez, 725 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1984) (similar holding on scienter as to drug type/quantity)
- United States v. Dado, 759 F.3d 550 (6th Cir. 2014) (Alleyne did not change mens rea requirement re: drug type/quantity under § 841)
- United States v. Ramirez‑Ramirez, 875 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1989) (precedent that scienter as to type/quantity is not required)
- United States v. Rea, 532 F.2d 147 (9th Cir. 1976) (early Ninth Circuit authority on importation scienter)