this issue of statutory interpretation. The Magistrate Judge recommended interpreting the statute in the manner espoused by the Government, requiring it to prove the substance is a controlled substance analogue under either clause (i), or (ii), or (iii) of Section 802(32)(A). The thrust of the R & R is that the plain language of the statute unambiguously supports a disjunctive reading based on the structure of the statute having three separate clauses, with the last two sections separated by an “or.” The R & R states: “As a general rule (S.D.N.Y.2001) (concluding that products containing 1,4 butanediol were controlled substance analogues of GHB if they met clauses (i) and (ii), or clauses (i) and (iii) of Section 80232(A)), and United States v. Forbes, 806 F.Supp. 232 (D.Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>). The R & R recommends that the analysis in
holding  1227a2bi limits the meaning of controlled substance for removal purposes to the substances controlled under  802 holding that aet an antidepressant having similar chemical structures to schedule i controlled substances could be a controlled substance analogue only if it met both the chemical structure and the pharmacological effect prongs of statute ie i and ii or i and iii holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense 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 controlled substances defined by their chemical composition can only be identified through chemical analysis and not through visual inspection