In United States v. Gray, No. 22-13516 (Feb. 29, 2024) (Wilson, Grant, Lagoa), the Court affirmed Mr. Gray’s conviction for conspiracy to commit a controlled-substance offense.
The Court rejected Mr. Gray’s chief contention: that his conviction
could not stand because the government failed to prove that he knowingly
possessed--as the indictment alleged--either “a Schedule II controlled substance”
or, more specifically, “50 grams or more of methamphetamine.” This argument, the Court
held, was foreclosed by prior-panel precedent requiring only that the
government prove general knowledge to obtain a controlled-substance conviction.
That the indictment listed a specific substance simply specified an element of
an enhanced penalty under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b).
The Court also rejected argument concerning the district court’s denial, as untimely, of Mr. Gray’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. It held that the denial, although erroneous, was harmless because this issue depended entirely on Mr. Gray’s knowledge argument--which the Court had rejected.
