United States v. Figueroa-Beltran, No. 16-10388 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe 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?
Court Description: Criminal Law / Certification of Questions to Nevada. Supreme Court In an appeal from a criminal sentence, the panel certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court: 1. Is Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.337 divisible as to the controlled substance requirement? 2. Does the decision in Luqman conclude that the existence of a controlled substance is a “fact” rather than an “element” of § 453.337, rendering the statute indivisible? If so, can this conclusion be reconciled with Muller? 3. Does the decision in Muller conclude that offenses under § 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? UNITED STATES V. FIGUEROA-BELTRAN 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 27, 2021.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.