United States v. Figueroa-Beltran

The Ninth Circuit certified three questions of criminal law to the Nevada Supreme Court: 1. Is Nev. Rev. Stat 453.337 divisible as to the controlled substance requirement? 2. Does the decision in Sheriff v. Luqman, 697 P.2d 107 (Nev. 1985), conclude that the existence of a controlled substance is a "fact" rather than an "element" of section 453.337, rendering the statute indivisible? If so, can this conclusion be reconciled with Muller v. Sheriff, 572 P.2d 1245 (Nev. 1977)? 3. Does the decision in Muller conclude that offenses under section 453.337 comprise "distinct offenses requiring separate and different proof," rendering the statute divisible as to the controlled substance requirement? If so, can this be reconciled with Luqman? View "United States v. Figueroa-Beltran" on Justia Law