was illegal. This is the position taken by most federal courts of appeals. See United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir.2003) (observing that the federal cases are “legion” that hold that knowledge of a substance’s illegality is sufficient mens rea for drug-possession crimes, and citing cases); see also United States v. Abdulle, 564 F.3d 119, 125 (2d Cir.2009) (“[T]he law is settled that a defendant need not know the exact nature of a drug in his possession to violate [federal controlled substance law]; it is sufficient that he ... be aware that he ... possesses some controlled substance.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Village, 323 F.3d 435, 439 (6th Cir.2003) (“[D]rug type and quantity are irrelevant to the mens rea element onzales, 172 F.3d 344, 345 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Leavitt, 878 F.2d 1329, 1337
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 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 mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance