United States v. Everett
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
700 F.2d 900 (1983)
An undercover agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration purchased methamphetamine and phenyl-2-propanone (P-2-P) from Ralph Horan. Horan was arrested after the methamphetamine sale but before the P-2-P sale was completed. Horan told officers that George Everett (defendant) was the source of the substances and agreed to cooperate with the government in closing the P-2-P deal with Everett. Horan and Everett planned to meet so Horan could buy six pints of P-2-P from Everett. Horan told Everett the client wanted a sample of the P-2-P before payment, which Everett agreed to provide. Undercover agents were posed as the client outside Everett’s house when Horan went to get the sample. Horan gave the sample to agents, who tested the liquid. The test indicated that the substance was P-2-P. The agents arrested Everett, who stated that he had obtained the substance from another person. Everett was indicted for the distribution and possession of P-2-P. However, later tests of the substance showed that the original result was inaccurate and that the sample was not actually P-2-P or any other controlled substance. Everett was subsequently indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (count I) and for knowingly and intentionally attempting to distribute P-2-P in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, which punishes anyone who attempts or conspires to commit any offense involving a controlled substance (count II). The jury acquitted Everett on count I but convicted Everett on count II. Everett moved for acquittal, arguing that the fact that the sample was not P-2-P made Everett’s attempt to distribute impossible. The trial judge held that, while there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Everett believed the liquid was P-2-P, there nonetheless could not be an attempt, because the substance distributed by Everett was not P-2-P or any other controlled substance. The government appealed the judgment of acquittal.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gerry, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.