No. 19-28

Kenneth Daniels v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2019-07-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: aggravated-felony armed-career-criminal-act attempt controlled-substances-act criminal-attempt drug-distribution immigration-and-nationality-act immigration-law solicitation uniform-administration
Key Terms:
Immigration
Latest Conference: 2020-02-28 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether solicitation can by itself constitute an 'attempt' within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) makes it a crime to “distribute * * * a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. 841(a). The Act includes an “attempt” to distribute within the meaning of “distribute” (21 U.S.C. 802(8), (11)) and separately criminalizes “attempts” (21 U.S.C. 846). There is a deep and acknowledged conflict among the courts of appeals on the question whether solicitation—that is, a mere offer to buy or sell a controlled substance—can by itself constitute an “attempt” within the meaning of that language. The disagreement is impeding the uniform administration not only of the Controlled Substances Act, but also of other statutes that depend on the CSA’s proscriptions. The question whether solicitation constitutes an attempt under the CSA dictates, for example, whether a state drug offense that criminalizes solicitation categorically qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(a)(ii). The same holds true for the determination under the Immigration and Nationality Act whether a state drug offense categorically qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B). The outcome of this case, which involves a criminal prosecution under the ACCA, turns cleanly on the answer to the question presented. The question presented is whether solicitation can by itself constitute an “attempt” within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act.

Docket Entries

2020-03-02
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.
2019-09-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-03
Brief of respondent United States filed.
2019-07-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 3, 2019.
2019-07-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 1, 2019 to September 3, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-07-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2019)
2019-04-01
Application (18A996) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 7, 2019.
2019-03-29
Application (18A996) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 8, 2019 to July 7, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Kenneth Daniels
Michael B. KimberlyMCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent