United States v. Jama Mire
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15118
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Somali House of Coffee in Indianapolis became a site for distribution and use of khat; Mire owned the coffeehouse and Rafle assisted in the scheme as a courier and money sender. Ahmed (a cooperating witness) supplied and sold khat there and elsewhere.
- Khat (Catha edulis) is not itself listed in federal schedules, but fresh khat leaves may contain cathinone (Schedule I) and cathine (Schedule IV); chemical testing is needed to determine controlled-substance content.
- FBI investigation (tip from a confidential source, surveillance, wiretaps, controlled buys) led to seizure of khat at the coffeehouse; DEA chemists tested samples and found some containing cathinone or cathine.
- Mire and Rafle were indicted on a conspiracy count (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846); Mire faced additional counts for maintaining a place for drug distribution (21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1)) and possession with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)). Bench trial convicted both; sentences are not at issue on appeal.
- On appeal, defendants challenged: (1) lack of fair warning under Due Process that khat could be illegal; (2) admissibility of DEA chemists’ qualitative GC-MS testing under Daubert; Mire additionally challenged double jeopardy and sufficiency of evidence. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair warning (Due Process) | Government: CSA schedules list cathinone/cathine; scienter requirement (knowingly) supplies necessary notice. | Defs: Ordinary persons lack notice that "khat" may contain cathinone/cathine because khat is not named in the schedules or CFR, so statute is underinclusive and vague. | Court: Statute not unconstitutionally vague; scienter requirement (knowledge) cures notice problem — defendants must have known leaves contained a controlled substance. |
| Expert testimony admissibility (Daubert) | Government: DEA forensic GC-MS qualitative testing for presence of cathinone/cathine is reliable, peer-reviewed, low error rate, and commonly accepted in forensic analysis. | Defs: Tests lacked limits of detection/blank and quantitative component; qualitative GC-MS thus unreliable to prove controlled-substance presence. | Court: District court did not abuse discretion; GC-MS qualitative testing admissible; limits/quantitation not required for forensic identification of controlled substances. |
| Double jeopardy (Mire) | Government: Conspiracy (§§841/846) and maintaining a place (§856) have distinct elements; Congress intended separate punishments. | Mire: Convictions overlap because operative facts (maintaining place) duplicate conspiracy conduct. | Court: No violation under Blockburger — each statute requires an element the other does not (agreement for conspiracy; use/maintain place for §856). |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Mire) | Government: Record (Ahmed’s testimony, Mire’s denials, possession/storage, mailbox use, photos) suffices to show knowledge, agreement, and possession/intended distribution. | Mire: Government failed to prove actual knowledge that khat contained a controlled substance and failed to prove agreement for conspiracy. | Court: Evidence sufficient — Mire’s denials and control of premises supported knowledge; Ahmed’s testimony supported agreement and conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.) (expertise on khat and holding scienter mitigates vagueness)
- United States v. Caseer, 399 F.3d 828 (6th Cir.) (rejecting fair-warning challenge to khat prosecutions)
- United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.) (same; knowledge requirement saves statute)
- Abdulle v. United States, 564 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (discussion of cathinone conversion to cathine and timing)
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964) (due process notice principle for criminal statutes)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial-court gatekeeping for expert evidence)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (scienter mitigating vagueness)
- Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337 (1952) (knowledge requirement mitigates unfairness)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (double jeopardy element test)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)