following our holding in Davis that the two elements required to establish that a crime is “illicit trafficking” are (1) the offense is a felony under the law of the convicting sovereign and (2) it contains a “trafficking element,” such as the unlawful trading or dealing of a controlled substance
How later courts described this case
- following our holding in Davis that the two elements required to establish that a crime is “illicit trafficking” are (1) the offense is a felony under the law of the convicting sovereign and (2) it contains a “trafficking element,” such as the unlawful trading or dealing of a controlled substance
- commenting that national uniformity would be undermined if “aliens convicted of drug offenses in different states that punish similar offenses differently [were] treated differently with respect to deportation and cancellation”
- observing that “ ‘trafficking’ is not an essential element of all state drug convictions in order for those convictions to constitute an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)”
- noting that under the “illicit trafficking route” the state offense “must be a felony under the law of the convicting sovereign” and “must contain a trafficking element”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I diverge from the majority on the construction of the definition of a “drug trafficking crime” in 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). The words themselves seem to me to point to any state felony that would be conduct punishable under federal law, rather than necessarily to a crime that would be punishable as a felony under federal law. I might join Chief Judge Becker’s masterful opinion, however, if we were surveying a new route; but too many circuit courts have chosen the other way and I would follow them in the interest of consistency and uniformity of federal law.
I would affirm.