United States v. Lin: Knowledge of Marijuana’s Identity Satisfies § 846 Mens Rea; Evidence of State-Law Legality Is Irrelevant; Willful-Blindness Instruction Upheld

Introduction

In United States v. Lin (10th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025), the Tenth Circuit affirmed a federal jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants under 21 U.S.C. § 846. The case arose from a multijurisdictional investigation into black-market marijuana distribution that ferried cannabis from Oklahoma grow operations to out-of-state markets using a disguised delivery truck. The defendant, Tong Lin, was tied to a Wetumka, Oklahoma grow where agents later seized nearly 20,000 plants and substantial processed marijuana.

On appeal, Lin advanced four principal challenges: (1) insufficiency of the evidence that the plants were marijuana; (2) insufficiency of the evidence of his knowledge of illegality and error in excluding his asserted belief that state law permitted the conduct; (3) error in giving a deliberate-ignorance (willful blindness) instruction; and (4) cumulative error. The Tenth Circuit rejected each argument.

Although issued as a nonprecedential order and judgment, the opinion is citable for persuasive value and is significant in three respects: it reaffirms that, under McFadden and the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Shamo, the government can satisfy the mens rea for federal drug offenses by proving the defendant knew the identity of the drug (here, marijuana) even if he did not know its federal legal status; it approves exclusion of evidence that a defendant believed state law permitted his conduct as irrelevant to the federal charge; and it endorses the use of a willful-blindness instruction where circumstantial evidence suggests purposeful avoidance of knowledge.

Summary of the Opinion

Sufficiency (identity of the substance): Reviewed for plain error because Lin did not move for acquittal under Rule 29(a). The court held that testimony that the site was a state-licensed medical marijuana grow, together with eyewitness testimony that the substance collected was marijuana, provided more than sufficient evidence for the jury to find the plants were marijuana.
Mens rea and exclusion of state-law evidence: The panel held it was enough for the government to prove Lin knew he was dealing with marijuana; his subjective belief that state law allowed the conduct was irrelevant to the federal offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of state-law compliance or beliefs about legality.
Deliberate ignorance (willful blindness): No error, plain or otherwise, in giving the Tenth Circuit Pattern Instruction. The disguised “Amazon” van, vacuum-sealed packaging, and other concealment efforts supported an inference that, if Lin lacked actual knowledge, he deliberately avoided learning the truth.
Entrapment by estoppel: Waived on appeal for failure to preserve and to make a plain-error argument.
Cumulative error: Rejected because the court found no individual errors.
Disposition: Conviction affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Beginning in late 2021, federal and state authorities investigated a scheme in which an organizer, Brandon Ye, collected large quantities of marijuana from multiple Oklahoma grows, including a Wetumka site operated by Jeff Weng and Tong Lin, and consolidated the product at a warehouse before out-of-state shipment. Ye used a van marked with his former company, Arch Granite, and later a blue Mercedes Sprinter disguised as an Amazon delivery vehicle. At the Wetumka site, Ye picked up roughly 150 pounds per visit, about a dozen times in four months. Evidence showed Lin helped load vacuum-sealed cannabis packaged in retail boxes into the disguised van.

A search of the Wetumka property yielded 19,661 marijuana plants, 460 pounds of processed or loose marijuana, a firearm and holster, and more than $100,000 in vacuum-sealed cash hidden in an attic. Lin, who described himself as a “management intern,” had his initials on task lists throughout the grow. He was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants, tried to a jury, convicted, and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment with five years’ supervised release. He appealed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015): McFadden addresses the knowledge element in federal drug prosecutions, holding that the government may prove mens rea by showing the defendant knew either (i) the substance was a controlled substance, or (ii) facts establishing the substance’s controlled status (and, in analogue cases, the analogue’s identity or features). Lin argued about McFadden’s scope, but the panel emphasized it did not need to resolve any lingering debate because the evidence showed Lin both knew he was dealing with marijuana and understood he was operating outside the law.
United States v. Shamo, 36 F.4th 1067, 1076 (10th Cir. 2022): The Tenth Circuit has already “specifically adopted” McFadden’s mens rea framework and held it is sufficient to prove the defendant knew the drug’s identity (there, fentanyl), even if he did not know it was controlled. Bound by Shamo, the Lin panel treated knowledge-of-identity as enough to meet mens rea, which made Lin’s beliefs about legality irrelevant.
United States v. Manzanares, 956 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2020): Articulates panel-stare decisis: this panel could not overrule Shamo absent en banc or Supreme Court intervention. This locked in the knowledge-of-identity rule for Lin’s case.
United States v. Banks, 884 F.3d 998, 1018 (10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Nguyen, 413 F.3d 1170, 1175 (10th Cir. 2005): Confirm that knowledge and intent are typically proven by circumstantial evidence. The panel relied heavily on circumstantial facts (concealment tactics, cash, firearm, Lin’s management role) to support knowledge.
United States v. Merritt, 961 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 2020): Sets the abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings. The court applied this in upholding exclusion of state-law compliance/legality evidence as irrelevant under the governing mens rea rule.
United States v. Delreal-Ordones, 213 F.3d 1263, 1268 (10th Cir. 2000): Provides the framework for willful-blindness instructions: appropriate where a defendant denies knowledge but the evidence shows deliberate acts to avoid learning an operative fact; circumstantial proof suffices. The panel concluded the facts here fit that pattern.
United States v. Bradley, 97 F.4th 1214, 1221 (10th Cir. 2024); United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d 1192, 1196 (10th Cir. 2019): Establish that unpreserved issues lacking a plain-error argument on appeal are waived. The court applied those principles to Lin’s entrapment-by-estoppel contention.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis unfolds in three layers: sufficiency, mens rea and evidentiary exclusion, and jury instructions.

Sufficiency under plain-error review: Because Lin did not move under Rule 29(a), the court reviewed for plain error and swiftly found the evidence more than sufficient. Two strands sufficed on their own: the state licensure showing the site was a medical marijuana grow, and eyewitness testimony from Ye that the substance collected there was marijuana. While the government had more proof, these two items comfortably met the identity-of-substance element. This illustrates the Tenth Circuit’s willingness to credit circumstantial and lay testimony to prove drug identity, without requiring chemical testing.
Mens rea and the irrelevance of state-law legality evidence: Lin argued the government needed to prove he knew the substance was “controlled,” not merely that it was marijuana, and that he should have been allowed to show he believed his actions were lawful under state law. The panel sidestepped any ambiguity in McFadden by relying on binding circuit precedent (Shamo): knowledge of drug identity satisfies the mens rea for § 841/§ 846. Under that rule, a defendant’s beliefs about the law’s content—e.g., that state law authorizes cultivation or distribution—do not negate the federally required mental state. The district court therefore acted within its broad evidentiary discretion by excluding state-law compliance evidence as irrelevant. The panel added that, although the district court also found the evidence risked jury nullification, irrelevance alone justified exclusion.
Willful blindness instruction: The panel approved the Tenth Circuit’s pattern instruction on deliberate ignorance. The fact pattern—loading large quantities of marijuana, vacuum-sealed and concealed in retail boxes, into a fake Amazon delivery van, coupled with the presence of a firearm and substantial vacuum-sealed cash—supported an inference that Lin either knew, or purposefully avoided confirming, the illicit nature of the enterprise. Under Delreal-Ordones, circumstantial evidence supports the instruction; the court did not need direct proof that Lin consciously avoided the truth.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

Mens rea in federal marijuana cases: Within the Tenth Circuit, prosecutors need only prove that a defendant knew the substance was marijuana; they need not prove he knew marijuana is federally controlled or illegal. That narrows defenses rooted in confusion over the interplay between state legalization and federal prohibition.
Exclusion of state-law compliance evidence: Evidence that a defendant believed state law permitted the conduct—or that a grow was state-licensed—does not bear on federal mens rea and can be excluded as irrelevant. Practically, this limits defendants’ ability to try state-compliance narratives before the jury in federal prosecutions, particularly where the defense aims to leverage juror sympathies or nullification tendencies. Notably, the court did recognize state-licensure evidence as probative of drug identity, illustrating a nuanced divide: licensure may help prove what the substance is, but not whether the defendant thought the conduct was lawful federally.
Willful blindness in distribution schemes: Courts are likely to approve deliberate-ignorance instructions when concrete signs of concealment—disguised vehicles, vacuum-sealed packaging, cash hoards, firearms—pervade the operation. Defendants who compartmentalize their roles while participating in sophisticated concealment may face a willful-blindness instruction even if they avoid explicit admissions of knowledge.
Preservation pitfalls: The opinion underscores two preservation lessons: (i) failure to move for judgment of acquittal triggers plain-error review on sufficiency; and (ii) raising a defense like entrapment by estoppel without preserving it and briefing plain error on appeal leads to waiver.
Persuasive but not binding: Though designated nonprecedential, the decision is citable under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. District courts within the circuit can be expected to follow its reasoning, particularly because it rests squarely on binding circuit and Supreme Court authority.

Complex Concepts Simplified

21 U.S.C. § 846 (drug conspiracy): Makes it a crime to conspire to commit a drug offense (such as distribution under § 841). The government must prove an agreement to commit the drug crime and the defendant’s knowing, voluntary participation.
Mens rea: knowledge of identity vs. knowledge of controlled status: For federal drug crimes, the government may satisfy the mental-state requirement by proving the defendant knew the drug’s identity (e.g., “this is marijuana”), without additionally proving he knew federal law classifies the substance as controlled or illegal. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
State-law compliance vs. federal liability: Even if a state licenses marijuana activity, federal law still prohibits manufacture and distribution of marijuana. Evidence that a defendant believed state law allowed the conduct does not negate federal mens rea and may be excluded as irrelevant.
Deliberate ignorance (willful blindness): A jury may be instructed that it can treat a defendant as having knowledge if he was aware of a high probability of a fact and deliberately avoided learning it. Hallmarks include deliberate steps to avoid confirming wrongdoing amid clear red flags.
Plain-error review: Applied when a party fails to preserve an issue at trial (e.g., no Rule 29 motion). The appellant must show an error that is clear, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. It is a demanding standard.
Entrapment by estoppel: A narrow defense where a defendant reasonably relies on an affirmative statement or assurance from an authorized government official that particular conduct is lawful. It must be preserved; moreover, statements by state officials generally cannot bind federal authorities on federal criminal law.
Jury nullification: When jurors acquit despite evidence of guilt because they disagree with the law. Courts typically exclude evidence calculated to invite nullification because it is not relevant to the charged elements.

Key Takeaways

Knowledge that the substance is marijuana satisfies the mens rea for federal drug conspiracy; knowledge of federal illegality is not required.
Evidence of a defendant’s belief that state law permits marijuana activity is irrelevant in federal prosecutions and may be excluded, even as similar evidence may be admitted to prove the identity of the substance.
Deliberate-ignorance instructions are appropriate where circumstantial evidence suggests purposeful avoidance of obvious illegality, particularly in the presence of concealment tactics.
Preserving issues at trial—especially through a Rule 29 motion and timely objections—is critical; failure to do so triggers plain-error review or waiver.
Although nonprecedential, the opinion’s reasoning is firmly anchored in McFadden and Shamo and will likely guide district courts across the Tenth Circuit.

Conclusion

United States v. Lin cements, in a practical and fact-driven way, the Tenth Circuit’s adherence to McFadden and Shamo: for federal drug conspiracies under § 846, proof that the defendant knew he was dealing with marijuana suffices to establish the required mental state. The panel’s endorsement of excluding state-law compliance evidence highlights the enduring supremacy of federal drug law over state-legal regimes in federal courtrooms. And its approval of a willful-blindness instruction in a concealment-laden distribution scheme signals that defendants cannot insulate themselves from liability by purposeful ignorance. The decision offers clear guidance to prosecutors, defense counsel, and trial courts on evidentiary boundaries, jury instructions, and preservation, and it will likely exert substantial persuasive influence throughout the circuit.

Case: United States v. Lin, No. 24-6130 (10th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) (nonprecedential order and judgment; citable for persuasive value).