United States v. Michael Lane

MEMORANDUM

Michael Rocky Lane appeals his conviction for manufacturing and distributing controlled substance analogues — including MDPV, a-PVP, and a-PBP — in violation of the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act (Analogue Act). See 21 U.S.C. §§ 802 (32)(A), 813, 841. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The Analogue Act is not unconstitutionally vague as applied in this case. The district court required the government to prove that Lane knew he was dealing with controlled substance analogues, satisfying the Supreme Court’s subsequent holding in McFadden v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2298 , 192 L.Ed.2d 260 (2015). This scienter requirement “alleviate[s] vagueness concerns.” Id. at 2307 (alteration in original); see also United States v. Turcotte, 405 F.3d 515, 531 (7th Cir.2005) (“The circuit courts considering this issue have unanimously held that the CSA’s Analogue Provision is not unconstitutionally vague.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing' drug users to compare their experiences with the alleged analogues and common illegal stimulants. The district court admitted comparisons with cocaine and…