Whether the knowingly mens rea in 21 U.S.C. § 841 applies to the elements of drug type and quantity that establish mandatory minimum and enhanced maximum sentences

QUESTION PRESENTED The Ninth Circuit panel below followed a recent, 6-5 en banc opinion holding that the knowingly mens rea in the federal controlled substance statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841, does not apply to the elements of drug type and quantity required to trigger significant mandatory minimum and enhanced maximum sentences. See United States v. Collazo, 984 F.3d 1308 (9" Cir. 2021) (en banc). The five dissenting judges in Collazo explained that the majority’s conclusion was inconsistent with the presumption of mens rea, as explained by Justice Kavanaugh in United States v. Burwell, 690 F.3d 500, 527-53 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (en banc) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting), and otherwise conflicted with a wealth of this Court’s precedent culminating in Rehaif'v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). This petition presents the important statutory construction question that divided the en banc panel in Collazo. The question presented is: Whether the knowingly mens rea in 21 U.S.C. § 841 applies to the elements of drug type and quantity that establish mandatory minimum and enhanced maximum sentences. i STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES . United States v. Donald Stanley, No. 18CR4834-AJB, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Judgment entered November 27, 2019. . United States v. Donald Stanley, No. 19-50365, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered June 9, 2021, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied July 19, 2021. i