United States v. Raquel Rivera, 74 F.4th 134

In April 2020 CBP officers at Saint Thomas found two suitcases containing multiple vacuum-sealed bags of a green, plant-like substance linked to Raquel Rivera; Rivera gave inconsistent explanations about ownership and packing.
A CBP forensic chemist testified the seized material was marijuana based on tests, but did not quantify delta-9 THC concentration (i.e., did not determine whether it exceeded 0.3%).
Rivera was charged with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana; the jury acquitted on conspiracy and convicted on possession; the district court denied a Rule 29 motion and sentenced Rivera to probation.
The 2018 Farm Bill amended the CSA to exclude “hemp” (Cannabis sativa L. with ≤0.3% delta-9 THC) from the definition of marijuana.
21 U.S.C. § 885(a)(1) places the burden of producing evidence for statutory exemptions or exceptions on the person claiming the exemption; the government need not negative such exceptions unless the defendant puts them at issue.
The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the Farm Bill’s hemp carve-out is an exception that Rivera failed to put at issue, so the government had no burden to prove the seized cannabis exceeded 0.3% THC.

Issue	Rivera's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the government must prove seized cannabis had >0.3% THC (i.e., not hemp) to convict for marijuana possession	Farm Bill made THC >0.3% an element of marijuana offenses; gov must prove it	Hemp is an exception to the definition of marijuana; under §885(a)(1) the defendant must produce evidence to raise the exception	Hemp is an exception; gov need not disprove it unless defendant produces evidence; Rivera did not, so gov had no burden
Whether evidence was sufficient to show the substance was marijuana (not hemp)	Insufficient — chemist did not quantify THC concentration	Expert testing and circumstantial evidence supported a marijuana finding	Court affirmed conviction; because defendant did not place the hemp exception at issue the gov bore no burden to disprove it; appellate court affirmed without needing to decide a separate sufficiency ruling (district court had found sufficient evidence)

United States v. Polan, 970 F.2d 1280 (3d Cir. 1992) (government need not negative statutory exceptions; defendant bears burden of going forward with evidence of exception)
Smith v. United States, 269 F.2d 217 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (applying principle that defendant must produce evidence showing an exception to an offense applies)
McKelvey v. United States, 260 U.S. 353 (1922) (longstanding principle that prosecution need not negative exceptions to offenses)
United States v. Vargas-Castillo, 329 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (discusses marijuana definition but did not consider §885(a)(1); court noted marijuana counts differ from non-Cannabis controlled substances)