United States v. Roberto Rodriquez-Camacho

Appellant pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to one count of possession of a controlled substance (99 pounds of marijuana) with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1).

On appeal he contends (1) that the words “intent to distribute” are inadequately defined, rendering the statute unconstitutionally vague, and (2) that the statute fails to state an offense against the United States. We affirm.

“Distribute” is defined by 21 U.S.C. § 802 (11):

“Deliver” is defined by 21 U.S.C. § 802 (8):

We conclude that § 841(a)(1) and the corresponding definitions create a “sufficiently definite warning,” United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 8 , 67 S.Ct. 1538 , 91 L.Ed. 1877 (1946), that possession with intent to deliver or transfer a controlled substance, either interstate or intrastate, constitutes a federal offense, and therefore is not unconstitutionally vague.

Appellant’s second contention that “the statute fails to state an offense against the United States,” is likewise without merit.

Appellant urges that Congress may not constitutionally regulate the intrastate distribution of controlled substances. We…