statutory construction, an ‘or’ placed before the last term in a series indicates that each term in the series is intended to be read in the disjunctive and given separate meaning.” [R & R at 5, citing United States v. Urban, 140 F.3d 229, 232 (3d Cir.1998) (“Canons of construction ordinarily suggest that terms connected by a disjunctive be given separate meanings unless the context dictates otherwise.”)]. The Magistrate Judge declined to adopt a conjunctive reading of the statute, which would require her to imply the word “and” between clauses (i) and (ii), and concluded that the statute was unambiguous in its plain language. The R & R considered three United States District Court decisions interpreting Section 802(32)(A). Compare United States v. Greig, 144 F.Supp.2d 386 (D.Vi.2001) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Roberts, 2001 WL
holding that a substance containing wax and flour and misrepresented to be crack cocaine was a controlled substance analogue if it fell under subsections i or ii or iii of section 80232a holding that knowledge that a substance is a controlled substance is an element of  952 holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance