## Facts

- Three wet Federal Express packages labeled “Documents” arrived in Portland, Maine; employees opened them and found green, leafy plant material.
- Employees contacted the DEA; testing showed the material was khat (Catha edulis), traditionally used as a stimulant.
- Khat is not listed by name in the Controlled Substances Act schedules, but fresh khat contains cathinone (Schedule I), which degrades over time into cathine.
- Hussein attempted to retrieve the packages and was arrested.
- The government charged Hussein under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) with knowingly possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, based on cathinone in the khat.
- Hussein admitted he knew the packages contained khat, knew it was a stimulant, and knew the shipment process was secretive and designed to avoid detection, but denied knowing khat (or any component) was federally controlled.
- A jury convicted Hussein; the district court denied his Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal; Hussein appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Controlled Substances Act provided fair warning that possessing khat is unlawful when khat is not listed by name but contains cathinone, a listed Schedule I substance.
2. Whether § 841(a)(1) required the government to prove Hussein knew the precise controlled substance involved (cathinone), rather than only that he knew he was dealing with a substance regulated by federal drug laws.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the statutory scheme gave sufficient notice that possession of plant material containing a scheduled substance (cathinone) is covered, even if the plant (khat) is not named.
- The court held § 841(a)(1) does not require proof that the defendant knew the drug’s precise identity; it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was dealing with a substance regulated by federal drug abuse laws.
- The evidence supported a rational inference of the required knowledge, including Hussein’s awareness of khat’s stimulant character and the secretive, avoidance-oriented shipping scheme.

## Legal Principles

- A vagueness/fair-warning challenge fails where the controlled substance schedules identify a chemical (here, cathinone) present in the possessed material, even if the material’s common name is not listed.
- For 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the government need not prove the defendant knew the exact chemical identity or scheduling of the drug; it must prove the defendant knew he was dealing with some substance regulated under federal drug laws.
- Knowledge may be established through circumstantial evidence, including admissions about the substance’s effects and conduct consistent with concealment or evasion.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit sustained Hussein’s § 841(a)(1) conviction, ruling that the Controlled Substances Act gave adequate notice that khat containing cathinone is unlawful and that the statute’s scienter element is met by proof the defendant knew he was trafficking in a federally regulated drug, even without knowledge of the drug’s precise identity.


United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003)