Wednesday, September 6, 2023

U.S. v. Minter: 2d Cir. follows 8th in finding no categorical match b/c of state definition of cocaine

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in US v. Minter. It's a significant decision (with crimmigration implications) that follows the reasoning of the 8th Circuit's 2022 decision in Owen.

The issue presented in Minter was this: Was Minter’s 2014 conviction under New York Penal Law § 220.39(1) for the sale of cocaine was for a “serious drug offense” and therefore qualifies as a predicate offense for the purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 6 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)?

How did the court approach this question? With everyone's favorite tool: The Categorical Approach.

The approach required the court to analyze the state law definition of cocaine. It's at that point that things get, well, science-y:

Unlike New York’s undefined use of the term “isomer,” the federal regulation further defines “isomer” to mean only “any optical or geometric isomer” of cocaine. Id. §1300.01(b). Isomers are “[c]hemical compounds that have the same composition but differ in the chemical arrangement of their constituents.” Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.p.A, 760 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 2014). There are two broad types of isomers: stereoisomers—isomers in which the atoms are joined in the same order, but in a different spatial arrangement—and constitutional isomers, which are all other isomers, including what are termed “positional isomers.” See United States v. Phifer, 909 F.3d 372, 377-78 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Unlike in stereoisomers, the atoms in constitutional isomers 2 differ in how they are connected.”). The CSA includes only stereoisomers—optical and geometric—in its definition of cocaine, but includes certain constitutional isomers in its definitions of other drugs. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d) (defining hallucinogens to include its “optical, positional, or geometric” isomers (emphasis added)).

 

In comparison, the New York definition of cocaine does not limit itself to optical or geometric isomers. That is so even though the New York schedules supply specific definitions of criminalized isomers of other types of drugs. See, e.g., N.Y. Public Health Law § 3306, Schedule I(d) (defining isomers of hallucinogenic substances “only” to “include[] the optical, position and geometric isomers”); see also id. § 3306, Schedule I(g) (same, for synthetic cannabinoids). Without such an express limitation, New York law criminalizes conduct—specifically conduct involving cocaine isomers other than optical or geometric isomers—that the CSA does not. The plain text of the two statutes thus compels the conclusion that New York's definition of cocaine is categorically broader than the federal definition.

In sum, New York’s definition of cocaine was found to be categorically broader than the relevant federal definition.

-KitJ

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2023/09/us-v-minter-2d-cir-follows-8th-in-finding-no-categorical-match-bc-of-state-definition-of-cocaine-.html

Current Affairs, Teaching Resources | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment