UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STEPHEN DOMINICK MCFADDEN
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Keenan, May 19, 2016,
CDS Analogue – Defendant’s numerous taped statements describing the chemical composition of CDS analogues he was selling was “overwhelming” evidence supporting his knowledge that he was selling CDS analogue based on chemical identities and physiological effects.

On remand from USSC

On remand from Supreme Court holding: “the Government must prove that a defendant knew that the substance with which he was dealing was ‘a controlled substance,’ even in prosecutions involving an analogue.” This “is met if the defendant knew that the substance was controlled under the CSA or the Analogue Act, even if he did not know its identity.” Or if the defendant knew it had “specific features of the substance that make it a ‘controlled substance analogue'”

The CoA held harmless error in most of the counts, but remanded on the remainder.

The fed analogue statute in question is similar to Maryland’s CR 5-402(f).

In the first recorded substantive conversation,
on August 25, 2011, McFadden discussed the composition of his
products, characterizing a mixture called “Alpha” as “the
straight chemical” and “the replacement for the MDPV.” When
asked for further details about a mixture labeled “No Speed
Limit,” McFadden represented that “Alpha mixed with the 4-MEC
gives you a No Speed Limit–like feeling, just not as intense.”
McFadden also explicitly compared these mixtures to “cocaine”
and “crystal meth.” In later conversations, McFadden discussed
distributing a “4-MEC” blend called “New Sheens,” adding “a
little extra kick” to a blend called “Hardball,” and describing
“Hardball” as a blend with “five active chemicals in it” or
“five ingredients.”