United States v. Parker
219 F. Supp. 3d 183
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Walter Parker Jr. was convicted in 1998 for multiple narcotics offenses (sale of 242.4 g crack in school zones) and sentenced to 148 months imprisonment plus a then-mandatory 10-year term of supervised release; he was resentenced to 120 months in 2008 after a Guidelines amendment.
- Parker served his sentence, was released July 23, 2012, and has complied with supervised release terms, maintained steady employment for ~4 years, and completed training/education while incarcerated and on release.
- Parker suffers chronic migraines and, on his doctor’s recommendation, enrolled in D.C.’s medical marijuana program in 2015; he tested positive for THC while on federal supervision. His use complied with D.C. law.
- The U.S. Probation Office filed a petition seeking clarification whether state-authorized medical marijuana use violates federal supervised-release conditions; the government initially contested the legal issue but did not seek revocation in this case.
- Parker moved for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); the government ultimately withdrew opposition based on case-specific factors and the parties asked the Court to resolve both the medical-marijuana question and the termination motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-authorized medical marijuana use by a federal supervisee violates federal law | Gov't: CSA classifies marijuana as Schedule I; state law cannot override federal law; supervisees therefore prohibited | Parker: Congressional appropriations rider prevents DOJ from using funds to interfere with state medical-marijuana laws and thus precludes revocation/incarceration for state-compliant use | Court: Medical marijuana use violates federal law (CSA); appropriations rider does not bar the court from responding, but government waived seeking revocation here; clarify probationers cannot use medical marijuana under federal supervision |
| Whether Parker willfully violated supervised-release conditions by using medical marijuana | Gov't: (implicitly) could be violation warranting revocation | Parker: He did not appreciate that state-authorized use violated his federal supervision conditions | Held: Use was not willful; therefore supervised-release revocation is not appropriate in this case |
| Whether early termination of supervised release is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) | Parker: long-term compliance, rehabilitation, employment, and sentencing law changes mean continued supervision is unnecessary | Gov't: initially opposed but later agreed early termination appropriate given unique facts (acceptance of responsibility at trial, reduced guidelines/mandatory minima today, 4 years successful supervision) | Held: Court granted early termination as in the interest of justice and consistent with § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether § 538 (appropriations rider) bars DOJ from acting against a supervisee using state-authorized medical marijuana | Parker: rider prevents DOJ from using funds to interfere with state medical-marijuana implementation, so DOJ cannot seek revocation/incarceration | Gov't: rider does not preclude seeking revocation; it merely constrains certain DOJ activities | Held: Court did not decide the outer limits of § 538 because DOJ did not seek revocation; noted prior authority that § 538 does not necessarily halt prosecutions and that the court retains ability to act |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (under the CSA marijuana is Schedule I and federal law preempts conflicting state medical‑marijuana statutes)
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) (physicians may not lawfully prescribe marijuana under the CSA)
- United States v. Bigley, 786 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (district court discretion to depart for sentencing manipulation)
- United States v. Harvey, 794 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (federal supervisees are prohibited from using state-sanctioned medical marijuana)
- United States v. Hicks, 722 F. Supp. 2d 829 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (state medical‑marijuana laws do not supersede federal prohibition on marijuana)