United States v. Robert Collazo, 982 F.3d 596

Background

Five alleged Mexican Mafia members (Collazo, Delgado-Vidaca, Rodriguez, Amador, Ballesteros) were tried for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841; the indictment alleged specific methamphetamine and heroin quantity bands triggering mandatory penalties.
The jury was instructed to make unanimous special findings on drug quantity using the formulation: the amount was “reasonably foreseeable to [the defendant] or fell within the scope of his particular agreement.”
The jury convicted all five of the § 846 conspiracy and returned quantity findings for certain defendants; defendants appealed the quantity jury instruction and related mens rea issues.
The Ninth Circuit reheard the consolidated appeals en banc to resolve whether (1) § 841(b) drug-type/quantity elements require proof of the defendant’s knowledge/intent, and (2) conspiracy under § 846 requires a greater mens rea than the underlying § 841(a) offense or incorporation of Guidelines/Pinkerton foreseeability rules.
The en banc majority held: to obtain § 841(b)(1)(A)/(B) penalties the government must prove drug type and quantity to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but need not prove the defendant’s knowledge/intent as to that type or quantity; § 846 conspiracy requires the same mens rea as the underlying § 841(a) offense, not a heightened intent; the district court’s foreseeability/scope jury instruction was erroneous.
The court overruled Ninth Circuit precedent to the extent it imported Guidelines/Pinkerton “relevant conduct”/foreseeability rules into the statutory elements analysis for § 846/§ 841(b), and remanded to the three-judge panel for harmless-error and remaining issues; Judge W. Fletcher dissented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (United States)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 841(b)(1) drug type and quantity require proof of the defendant’s knowledge/intent	§ 841(b) facts are elements for Sixth Amendment purposes and must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but mens rea as to type/quantity is not required	Government must prove the defendant "knowingly or intentionally" dealt the specific drug type and quantity that trigger enhanced penalties	Court: Type and quantity are elements to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but § 841(a)’s mens rea does not extend to knowledge/intent as to type or quantity.
Whether a § 846 conspiracy requires a greater mens rea than the underlying § 841(a) offense	N/A (government contended same mens rea as underlying is sufficient)	Conspirators must have known the specific drug type/quantity to be subject to enhanced penalties	Court: § 846 requires the same degree of criminal intent as the underlying § 841(a) offense; no heightened mens rea for conspiracy.
Whether Pinkerton/Guidelines “relevant conduct” (scope/foreseeability) governs which quantities can trigger § 841(b) penalties for conspirators	Even if type/quantity are elements, district courts should consider foreseeability/scope consistent with Sentencing Guidelines for culpability assessments	Defendants: jury must find that the drug amounts were reasonably foreseeable to each defendant or within the scope of their agreement before enhanced penalties apply	Court: Pinkerton/Guidelines relevant-conduct rules govern sentencing, not statutory elements for § 846; prior Ninth cases importing those rules were incorrect and are overruled to the extent incompatible.
Whether the district court’s jury instruction using “reasonably foreseeable to him or fell within the scope of his particular agreement” was correct	N/A	Instruction conflated sentencing-scope/foreseeability with elements and required jury finding of foreseeability/scope for quantity findings	Court: Instruction was erroneous because the government need only prove to the jury the drug type and quantity that constituted the § 841(b) elements; remanded for harmless-error review.

Key Cases Cited

Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (coconspirator liability for substantive offenses under foreseeability/in furtherance rule)
United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975) (conspiracy requires no greater mens rea than underlying offense)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing statutory maximum is an element)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum is an element)
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (mens rea presumptively applies to material elements that separate wrongful from innocent conduct)
Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (ordinary grammar and scienter principles guide how far mens rea travels within a statute)
X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (mens rea can reach remote statutory phrases where required to separate innocent from wrongful conduct)
United States v. Becerra, 992 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1993) (prior Ninth Circuit rule applying Guidelines-based foreseeability to § 841(b) sentencing — overruled to extent inconsistent)
United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2002) (Apprendi/Alleyne mandates jury findings of drug quantity/type)
Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009) (text, structure, and statutory context inform how mens rea attaches to statutory elements)