United States v. Ramos
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
814 F. 3d 910 (2016)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Mary Ann Ramos (defendant), the manager of a cellphone store, on several counts related to distribution of controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 and 841(a)(1). The trial evidence established that Ramos sold store customers who asked for "potpourri," the street name for synthetic cannabinoid products, packets carrying the trade names "Blue," "Mr. Happy," and "Mr. Nice Guy." Ramos did not publicly advertise or openly display the packets in her store, charged $25 for a small ten-gram packet of Mr. Nice Guy, collected no sales tax on packet sales, and rang up no packet sales on her store register. Although Mr. Nice Guy's label described it "not for human consumption," the product's label also advertised its cotton-candy flavor. Ramos' potpourri customers were actually undercover drug enforcement agents who procured a warrant to search Ramos' store, house, and car. The search turned up hundreds of packets and drug-smoking paraphernalia, all concealed from public view. Mr. Nice Guy's label described the product as "cannabinoid free," but subsequent laboratory tests showed that it actually contained the synthetic cannabinoid XLR-11, a controlled substance. The jury convicted Ramos on all counts. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ramos argued that the government failed to prove her knowledge that Mr. Nice Guy contained XLR-11.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gruender, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.