surrounding the distribution” of the drugs. Id. (emphasis added). For example, intent may be shown by “labeling claims” or other statements by drug manufacturers. Id. To be sure, FDA recognizes that there may be situations in which it will look beyond just the manufacturer’s statements, but nothing in its regulations requires FDA to do so. FDA’s decision to look to Sandoz’s labeling claims as an objective measure of Sandoz’s intent is reasonable and consistent with FDA’s regulations. Spectrum resists this conclusion by urging that FDA cannot escape the overarching goal of drug regulation: to ensure that drugs are labeled accurately, with instructions that offer adequate guidance to the intended user. See United States v. Regenerative Scis., LLC, 741 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). We agree to a point. Nothing in our holding
holding that trading drugs for a firearm constituted use under  924c1a holding that an insurance company did not have a duty to defend the plaintiff because providing directions to a concrete mixing truck does not constitute use of the truck recognizing that to satisfy the statutory requirement that a drugs label provide adequate directions for use a drugs label must provide directions under which the layman can use a drug safely and for the purposes for which it is intended quoting 21 cfr 2015 holding that the sale of drugs in small quantities is inadequate without additional evidence to support a finding of conspiracy to distribute drugs to others because the seller could reasonably believe that such purchases are intended for the buyers personal use holding that it was reasonable to conclude that a defendant intended to use a truck to facilitate the transportation of drugs when the defendant arrived at the site of drug activity in the truck and had no alternative means of leaving the site after obtaining the drugs