## Facts

- Earl Ramos managed, and Mary Ann Ramos worked at, a Waterloo, Iowa retail store where they sold packets marketed as “herbal incense” or “potpourri.”
- Beginning in 2012, the store sold synthetic cannabinoids (including XLR-11, UR-144, AM-2201, and JWH-081) and synthetic cathinones.
- The products were not openly displayed; sales occurred “under the counter” to customers who asked for “potpourri.”
- Packaging used brand names (e.g., “Mr. Nice Guy”) and included disclaimers such as “not for human consumption,” while also using marketing cues (e.g., flavors) suggesting intended ingestion.
- Mary handled sales in ways suggesting concealment, including not using the normal cash register and not collecting sales tax.
- Undercover officers purchased the products and obtained warrants; searches of the store, Mary’s home, and vehicles yielded hundreds of packets and related items.
- Laboratory testing showed the products contained synthetic cannabinoids and that labels claiming “cannabinoid free” were false.
- The prosecution proceeded on the theory that the substances were “controlled substance analogues” under 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(32) and 813, and that defendants knew the characteristics making them analogues.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Mary Ramos knew the substances she sold had the characteristics (chemical similarity and/or similar central-nervous-system effects) that made them controlled substance analogues.
2. Whether the district court erred at sentencing by treating the synthetic cannabinoids as most closely related to THC (not marijuana) under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and applying the 1:167 THC-to-marijuana equivalency ratio.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- It held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Mary had the required knowledge, and upheld denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal.
- It held the district court did not clearly err in selecting THC as the most closely related controlled substance and applying the 1:167 equivalency ratio under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.

## Legal Principles

- In analogue-drug prosecutions, the knowledge element may be proven through circumstantial evidence showing the defendant knew the substance’s features that made it an analogue (chemical similarity and/or similar intoxicating effects).
- Evidence of concealment and off-the-books sales practices may support an inference of knowledge that the products were intended to produce effects like illegal drugs.
- For unlisted drugs under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the sentencing court must identify the “most closely related” listed controlled substance; that factual determination may be supported by expert testimony.
- Appellate review of the district court’s selection of the most closely related substance and related drug-equivalency calculations is for clear error.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld the Ramoses’ convictions for distributing and conspiring to distribute controlled substance analogues, finding sufficient circumstantial proof of Mary Ramos’s knowledge, and affirmed sentences based on the district court’s supported factual finding that the synthetic cannabinoids were most closely related to THC, warranting the 1:167 marijuana-equivalency ratio.


United States v. Ramos, 814 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2016)