U.S. v. Novak

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss thirty counts of their indictment, alleging either conspiracy or drug distribution based on Controlled Substances Analogue Act, arising out of their sale of “XLR-11,” which was substance that was not listed on controlled substance schedule, but was similar to another substance that was on said schedule, where defendants argued that said Act was unconstitutionally vague. Record showed that defendants had pleaded guilty to one count alleging violation of said Act, and thus Ct. of Appeals could not resolve any non-jurisdictional challenge to said Act, since defendants failed to reserve right to appeal denial of their motion to dismiss. Moreover, any facial attack of said Act on vagueness grounds was rejected by Supreme Court in McFadden, 135 S. Ct. 2298. Ct. further rejected defendants’ argument that their guilty pleas were involuntary, where Dist. Ct. reviewed with each defendant elements of Act and questioned each defendant with respect to their knowledge of XLR-11’s effects. Also, record showed that each defendant was knowledgeable about chemical structure and effects of XLR-11 for purposes of establishing sufficient factual basis to support their guilty pleas.