Legal Opinion
United States v. Nector Ofarril and Louis Rosa
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 6, 1985No. 130, 161, Dockets 85-1168, 85-1195PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Per curiam
We reject Ofarril’s and Rosa’s contention that the government should have been required to prove appellants knew they were within 1000 feet of a public school. 21 U.S.C. § 845a sets forth only two preconditions for enhanced criminal liability. First, a defendant must violate 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) by knowingly “distributing a controlled substance,” and second, he must do so “in or on, or within one thousand feet of, the real property comprising a public ... school.” To construe the statute as appellants suggest would distort the statutory language and frustrate Congress’s unambiguous desire to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Robert P. Marchand, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- United States v. Robert ArchibaldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- United States v. Ramon FaluCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Vincent Austain Toner, Colm MurphyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- United States v. Benjamin Carr, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- United States v. Rufus HollandCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
- United States v. Peter S. Dimas and Ramon RomanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Angel Collado-Gomez and Gustavo Quintero-Gonzalez, Gustavo Quintero-GonzalezCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Commonwealth v. AlvarezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- United States v. Michael Joseph Johnson, United States of America v. Dolores Y. ElliottCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.