State-Law Belief Is No Defense: Knowledge of Marijuana’s Identity Alone Satisfies § 846 Mens Rea, Making State-Law “Legality” Evidence Irrelevant

Introduction

In United States v. Lin, No. 24-6130 (10th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Tong Lin for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The case arises from a multi-agency investigation into an Oklahoma-based black-market marijuana distribution network that clandestinely shipped large quantities of marijuana out of state. The panel (Chief Judge Holmes, and Judges Seymour and Bacharach) addressed four appellate issues:

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the plants were marijuana;
Whether the government had to prove Lin knew marijuana distribution was illegal under federal law—and whether Lin should have been permitted to present evidence that he believed the activity was legal under state law;
Whether a deliberate-ignorance (willful blindness) instruction was erroneous; and
Whether cumulative error required reversal.

The court rejected each argument and affirmed. Most notably, the court held that under controlling Tenth Circuit precedent applying McFadden v. United States, the government need only prove the defendant knew the identity of the substance (here, marijuana); a defendant’s belief that state law authorized the conduct is irrelevant to the mens rea element of a § 846/§ 841 prosecution. The court also upheld a deliberate-ignorance instruction on facts suggesting purposeful concealment (e.g., use of a fake Amazon van, vacuum sealing, and retail boxes).

Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed Lin’s 120-month sentence and five-year supervised release term, concluding:

Sufficiency of the evidence (identity of the substance): Reviewing for plain error (because Lin did not move for acquittal under Rule 29), the court held there was ample evidence that the plants were marijuana, including that the site was a state-licensed medical marijuana grow and co-conspirator testimony that the substance collected from Lin’s site was marijuana.
Mens rea and exclusion of state-law “legality” evidence: The court held that under Tenth Circuit precedent adopting McFadden’s framework, the government could satisfy mens rea by proving Lin knew the substance was marijuana; it did not need to prove he knew marijuana was federally controlled or illegal. Consequently, the district court properly excluded evidence of Lin’s belief that state law permitted his conduct as irrelevant.
Deliberate-ignorance instruction: Given the concealment methods (fake Amazon van, vacuum-sealed packaging, retail boxes) and Lin’s role helping load product, the instruction was appropriate.
Entrapment by estoppel: Lin waived this defense by failing to preserve it and by not making a plain-error argument on appeal.
Cumulative error: Rejected because there were no individual errors.

Analysis

Factual context

The investigation revealed an operation where co-conspirator Brandon Ye collected hundreds of pounds of marijuana from multiple grow sites in Oklahoma, using subterfuge to avoid detection—a blue Mercedes Sprinter van disguised as an Amazon delivery van and, earlier, a van marked “Arch Granite.” Collections occurred multiple times weekly; product was vacuum-sealed and hidden in black trash bags or commercial boxes (e.g., Home Depot). Every Friday, shipments were loaded onto a semi-truck and sent out of state. One source was a grow in Wetumka, Oklahoma, operated by Jeff Weng and Tong Lin. Ye visited that site roughly a dozen times over four months, picking up about 150 pounds each trip, with Lin personally helping load.

A May 17, 2023 search at the Wetumka location yielded 19,661 marijuana plants and 460 pounds of processed or loose marijuana, a firearm and holster, and over $100,000 in vacuum-sealed cash hidden in the attic above the primary bedroom closet. Lin told law enforcement he had been working at the grow for five months as a “management intern,” and his initials appeared on task lists posted around the site.

Precedents Cited and Their Role

McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015): McFadden held that in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act (particularly for analogs), the government can prove the “knowledge” element in either of two ways: (1) show the defendant knew the substance was controlled (or treated as controlled), or (2) show the defendant knew the identity of the substance, from which controlled status follows as a matter of law. Here, the panel relied on Tenth Circuit precedent applying McFadden’s two-path approach to hold that knowing the substance is marijuana suffices; the government need not prove the defendant knew marijuana was federally illegal.
United States v. Shamo, 36 F.4th 1067, 1076 (10th Cir. 2022): Shamo expressly adopted McFadden’s framework within the Tenth Circuit, stating it is enough to prove that the defendant knew he was distributing fentanyl, regardless of his knowledge of controlled status. The panel in Lin held it was bound by Shamo, and, by extension, the same rule applies to marijuana.
United States v. Manzanares, 956 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2020): Establishes that one panel cannot overrule another; absent en banc action or a contrary Supreme Court decision, Shamo controls. The panel invoked Manzanares to explain why Shamo’s reading of McFadden foreclosed Lin’s state-law “legality” argument.
United States v. Banks, 884 F.3d 998, 1018 (10th Cir. 2018) and United States v. Nguyen, 413 F.3d 1170, 1175 (10th Cir. 2005): Both confirm that knowledge and intent are commonly proven by circumstantial evidence. The panel leaned on this principle in upholding the jury’s inferences from the firearm, large cash finds, concealment tactics, and Lin’s managerial role.
United States v. Merritt, 961 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 2020): Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court applied this standard to affirm the district court’s exclusion of state-law “compliance” evidence as irrelevant under the governing mens rea framework.
United States v. Delreal-Ordones, 213 F.3d 1263, 1268 (10th Cir. 2000): A deliberate-ignorance instruction is appropriate when the defendant denies knowledge of an operative fact, but the record shows deliberate actions to avoid acquiring that knowledge. The panel used Delreal-Ordones to uphold the instruction based on strong circumstantial evidence of concealment.
United States v. Bradley, 97 F.4th 1214, 1221 (10th Cir. 2024) and United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d 1192, 1196 (10th Cir. 2019): When an appellant fails to preserve an issue and also fails to argue plain error, the issue is waived; appellate courts ordinarily decline to review it. Lin’s entrapment-by-estoppel claim was therefore deemed waived.

Legal Reasoning

1) Sufficiency of the evidence that the substance was marijuana (plain error review)

Because Lin did not move for acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a), the panel reviewed for plain error—a highly deferential standard. The court highlighted two data points—(i) that the site was a state-licensed medical marijuana grow and (ii) Ye’s testimony that he collected marijuana from that location—as sufficient to uphold the jury’s finding. The court noted the government presented “significantly more” evidence but emphasized that even these two pieces were enough under the applicable standard.

2) Mens rea under § 846/§ 841 and the exclusion of state-law “legality” evidence

The briefing raised a conceptual debate: must the government prove (a) that Lin knew the substance was controlled/illegal, or (b) that Lin knew the substance’s identity (marijuana), from which illegality follows? The court observed it did not need to resolve the dispute to sustain the verdict, given the compelling circumstantial proof that Lin knew he was acting outside the law (fake Amazon van, vacuum sealing, hidden cash, firearm, and Lin’s role).

But on the evidentiary issue, the court expressly invoked Tenth Circuit precedent adopting McFadden’s two-path framework. Under United States v. Shamo, it is sufficient for the government to prove the defendant knew the identity of the substance. On that view, evidence that Lin believed state law permitted marijuana distribution is irrelevant to whether he had the requisite mens rea under § 846/§ 841. The district court therefore acted within its discretion in granting the government’s motion in limine excluding such evidence. The panel further noted it need not reach the district court’s alternative Rule 403 reasoning (risk of prejudice and jury nullification) because irrelevance alone warranted exclusion.

3) Deliberate-ignorance (willful blindness) instruction

The panel affirmed the use of the Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction on deliberate ignorance. Under Delreal-Ordones, the instruction is justified if the defendant disclaims knowledge but the record supports that he took deliberate steps to avoid confirming an operative fact. The record here reflected elaborate concealment efforts: transition from a business-marked van to a fake Amazon delivery van, vacuum sealing, and disguising contraband within retail boxes. Lin personally assisted with loading. If he did not actually know of the illegality (which the evidence strongly supported), the jury could reasonably find he chose not to know—precisely the scenario for which the instruction exists. The panel found no error, plain or otherwise.

4) Entrapment by estoppel and cumulative error

The entrapment-by-estoppel theory was waived: Lin did not preserve it and failed to present a plain-error argument on appeal. With no individual errors identified, cumulative error necessarily failed.

Impact and Practical Implications

Although designated as an unpublished order and judgment, the opinion’s reasoning carries significant persuasive force and relies on binding Tenth Circuit authority:

State legalization does not immunize federal prosecution. Lin underscores that a defendant’s belief that marijuana commerce is permitted by state law is not relevant to the federal mens rea element when the government proves he knew the substance’s identity. Defense attempts to introduce “state-law compliance” or “state-law permission” as a shield are likely to be excluded as irrelevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401–402.
Mens rea proof remains flexible and circumstantial. The decision reaffirms the permissibility—and necessity—of relying on circumstantial evidence to demonstrate knowledge. Firearms, large quantities of vacuum-sealed cash, sophisticated concealment methods, and role-based access are potent proxies for knowledge and intent in drug-conspiracy trials.
Deliberate-ignorance instructions will be upheld where concealment is evident. Packaging contraband for secrecy, using sham business fronts, and loading disguised shipments are classic facts supporting a willful-blindness instruction. This expands prosecutorial tools where defendants deny knowledge but the operational context suggests purposeful avoidance.
Preservation matters—especially for affirmative defenses like entrapment by estoppel. Counsel must preserve such defenses in the district court and present plain-error arguments on appeal if necessary. Failure to do so results in waiver, foreclosing appellate review.
Marijuana-specific cases: identity vs. controlled status. By applying Shamo’s McFadden analysis to marijuana, the opinion clarifies within the Tenth Circuit that proof the defendant knew the substance was marijuana suffices for the mens rea element of § 846/§ 841, irrespective of his beliefs about federal legality.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mens rea under § 846/§ 841: The government must show the defendant knowingly joined a conspiracy involving a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Under McFadden (as adopted in the Tenth Circuit by Shamo), the government can prove “knowledge” either by showing the defendant knew the substance was controlled or by showing he knew the substance’s identity (e.g., marijuana). If the government proves identity, the law supplies the “controlled” status; the defendant’s misunderstanding of the law’s content is generally irrelevant.
Relevance of state-law compliance: In a federal drug case, evidence that state law allows marijuana activity does not negate the federal crime. When the mens rea requirement is satisfied by knowing the substance’s identity, evidence of a subjective belief that “state law allows this” does not make any material fact more or less probable—so it is excluded as irrelevant.
Plain error review: When a defendant does not preserve an issue (e.g., fails to move for a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal), the appellate court asks whether there was an “obvious” error that affected substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness of proceedings. It is a very difficult standard for defendants to meet.
Deliberate ignorance (willful blindness): Even if a defendant denies actual knowledge, the jury may infer knowledge when the defendant intentionally avoids learning a fact that is highly probable. Evidence of purposeful concealment or evasive behavior can warrant a deliberate-ignorance instruction.
Entrapment by estoppel (and waiver): This defense applies if a defendant reasonably relies on an official’s affirmative assurances that conduct is lawful. It must be preserved in the district court; failure to raise and brief it properly on appeal—especially without plain-error argument—results in waiver.
Cumulative error: Even if individual errors are harmless, their aggregate effect can warrant reversal. But there must be at least some errors; where none are found, the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.

Deeper Observations

Unpublished but consequential: The court notes this order and judgment is not binding precedent except for the parties (law of the case, etc.), but it remains citable for persuasive value. Its practical force derives from the binding decision in Shamo and the Supreme Court’s McFadden. Practitioners should treat Lin as a clear application to marijuana prosecutions where defendants invoke state legalization.
State license as double-edged sword: The opinion highlights that the site’s status as a state-licensed medical marijuana grow helped the government prove the plants’ identity as marijuana. But that same fact could not support a defense to federal charges; federal and state legality remain distinct.
Concealment as mens rea evidence: The facts—the fake Amazon van, vacuum-sealed packaging, retail boxes, weekly interstate shipments, and hidden cash—were central to the court’s inference that Lin knew, or at a minimum deliberately avoided knowing, that the activity was illegal.
Threshold quantity and conspiracy proof: The seizure of 19,661 plants far exceeded the 1,000-plant threshold. The repeated pickups (about 150 pounds per visit) and Lin’s regular assistance demonstrated agreement and participation—classic hallmarks supporting a § 846 conspiracy conviction.

Conclusion

United States v. Lin reinforces and applies a significant rule in federal drug prosecutions within the Tenth Circuit: the government can satisfy the mens rea element of § 846/§ 841 by proving the defendant knew the identity of the drug, here marijuana. A defendant’s belief that state law authorizes marijuana activity is irrelevant to this element and properly excluded from trial. The decision also underscores the robust role of circumstantial evidence in proving knowledge and intent, and it approves deliberate-ignorance instructions where concealment and evasive conduct suggest purposeful avoidance of knowledge.

The ruling’s practical impact is clear: state legalization affords no shield against federal drug charges, and efforts to “sanitize” operations through deceptive logistics (fake delivery vans, vacuum sealing, and retail packaging) may support both knowledge and willful blindness. For defense counsel, Lin is a reminder to preserve all issues (especially affirmative defenses) and to anticipate the limited role that state-law “compliance” evidence will play in federal prosecutions. For prosecutors, it provides a roadmap for assembling circumstantial proofs of knowledge and for justifying a deliberate-ignorance instruction in cases involving sophisticated concealment.