U.S. v. Williams

5 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Whren

    111 F.3d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that only the issues related to the remand can be raised in a subsequent appeal

    Appellants contend that their convictions for violation of 21 U.S.C. Section(s) 841(a)(1), which proscribes possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, including cocaine base, should be vacated because that section describes a lesser — included offense of 21 U.S.C. Section(s) 860(a), which proscribes possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a school. Appellants rely on United States v. Williams, 782 F. Supp. 7, 8-9 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd without opinion, 6 F.3d 829 (D.C. Cir. 1993), in which the District Court concluded that section 841 offenses were, in fact, lesser included offenses of section 860(a) offenses. The government agrees with appellants' argument.

  2. U.S. v. Whren

    53 F.3d 371 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 21 times
    Holding section 841 to be lesser included offense of 21 U.S.C. Section 860

    Appellants contend that their convictions for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), which proscribes possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, including cocaine base, should be vacated because that section describes a lesser-included offense of 21 U.S.C. § 860(a), which proscribes possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a school. Appellants rely on United States v. Williams, 782 F.Supp. 7, 8-9 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd without opinion, 6 F.3d 829 (D.C. Cir. 1993), in which the District Court concluded that section 841 offenses were, in fact, lesser included offenses of section 860(a) offenses. The government agrees with appellants' argument.

  3. U.S. v. Perry

    389 F. Supp. 2d 278 (D.R.I. 2005)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that a 20:1 ratio, as suggested by the Commission in its 2002 Report, “makes the most sense”

    See Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 297, 116 S.Ct. 1241, 134 L.Ed.2d 419 (1996) ("we have often concluded that two different statutes define the 'same offense,' typically because one is a lesser included offense of the other"). The Government apparently has no objection, as it filed no reply to the Defendant's Supplemental Brief raising this issue.Cf. United States v. Williams, 782 F. Supp. 7, 8 (D.D.C. 1992) (noting that the government conceded that the defendants' convictions under § 841 "must be vacated" in light of convictions under § 860). Section 841(a)(1) makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance.

  4. U.S. v. Barnes

    228 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Conn. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    Barnes devotes much of his memorandum to arguing that the imposition of the two concurrent sentences for Counts 14 and 15 violates the Double Jeopardy clause because he was sentenced under both § 841 and § 860, citing United States v. White, 240 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2001), United States v. Saavedra, 148 F.3d 1311, 1316 (11th Cir. 1998), United States v. Chandler, 125 F.3d 892, 896 (5th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Williams, 782 F. Supp. 7, 9 (D.D.C. 1992). These cases hold that imposition of two sentences for one act that violates both § 841 and § 860 is impermissible.

  5. U.S. v. Watson

    788 F. Supp. 22 (D.D.C. 1992)   Cited 6 times

    On that analysis, the first count becomes a lesser included offense of the second count, and prosecution of a defendant under both statutes would be unconstitutional under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). See also, United States v. Williams, 782 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1992) (J.H. Green, J.). If the amount of the drugs were regarded as an element of the first count, a result now foreclosed by Patrick, that count would require proof of a fact (the amount of drugs) that the second count does not. The second count, in turn, would require proof that the transaction occurred within 1000 feet of a school, a fact which need not be proved under the first count.