United States v. Kenneth King, A/K/A Bucky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that Apprendi did not “alter[] th[e] well-settled principle” that “sentencing enhancements provided in § 841(b) are imposed regardless of the defendant’s state of mind concerning the type or quantity of drugs in his possession”
• declining to “impute a mens rea requirement into a criminal statute (or apply the mens rea from one portion of a criminal statute to another)” because, in the context of § 841(b), there was “no risk that . . . apparently innocent conduct will be criminalized”
• “[T]he structure and language of § 841 clearly indicates that the terms ‘knowingly or intentionally’ in § 841(a) modifies the conduct set forth in that sub-section of the statute, and not the penalty provisions in § 841(b).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).