United States v. Glenn Wooden

── United States v. Glenn Wooden ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2702 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLENN D. WOODEN, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 3:19-cr-30004-CRL-KLM-1 — Colleen R. Lawless, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED OCTOBER 28, 2025 — DECIDED APRIL 30, 2026 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI and LEE, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Chief Judge. Across three transactions, Glenn Wooden sold nearly 100 grams of methamphetamine to con- fidential informants. When police searched his apartment, they found another 222 grams prepared for distribution. After his arrest, Wooden admitted on video to selling methamphet- amine. 2 No. 24-2702 After a jury trial, Wooden was convicted of possessing and distributing methamphetamine. In the district court and on appeal, he contends his convictions should be reversed, and his sentence vacated, because the government failed to prove he sold “illegal” methamphetamine. In his view, the Con- trolled Substances Act covers only the “optical isomers” of methamphetamine, not the generic drug. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(b)(1). So, it was not enough for the government to put on expert testimony from a Drug Enforcement Administration chemist, confirming the “methamphetamine” Wooden sold was 98% pure d-methamphetamine hydrochloride—in lay- man’s terms, crystal meth. Rather, prosecutors had to prove the drugs contained specific kinds of molecules. Wooden submits the district court erred during trial by not properly instructing the jury and not taking precautions as to witness testimony. He also contends insufficient evi- dence supported the drug quantity for which he was con- victed. Underlying these challenges is Wooden’s primary as- sertion that “[n]ot all methamphetamine is illegal as a matter of federal law.” Because this is not correct, we affirm the dis- trict court. I In 2018, the West Central Illinois Task Force learned about Wooden’s drug dealing from an informant, so it organized a series of controlled buys to catch him in the act. Each transac- tion involved more meth, and Wooden made over $2,600 in profits. Based on audio and video recordings of the buys, of- ficers secured a warrant to search Wooden’s apartment. There, they recovered many of the marked bills from the drug sales and a Crown Royal whisky box full of plastic baggies, each containing a different amount of methamphetamine. No. 24-2702 3 Law enforcement arrested Wooden after the third con- trolled buy. In a videotaped interview, he admitted that he and an associate had picked up two “bricks” (kilograms) of ice methamphetamine from Iowa the day before, broken them down into smaller amounts, and packaged them for distribu- tion. He also admitted to distributing two “zips” (ounces) of meth during the controlled buy earlier that morning. Wooden made clear he knew the drugs were “hot”—slang for “illegal.” Based on this evidence, Wooden was indicted on three counts of distributing, and one count of possessing, “methampheta- mine (actual).” Wooden chose to represent himself at trial. The govern- ment called six witnesses who testified about the controlled buys and offered evidence that the drugs Wooden sold were methamphetamine. One witness, DEA Chemist Louis Chavez, confirmed the weights of “pure methamphetamine” Wooden sold based on several rounds of standard lab testing. Wooden did not challenge the government’s characteriza- tion of the controlled b