I controlled substance when the person obtained the drug “pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). That distinction potentially becomes critical in cases where a person is convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Where there is no evidence that any of the drugs obtained by members of a conspiracy were obtained or possessed legally, all reasonably foreseeable quantities possessed by conspiracy members with intent to distribute and within the scope of the criminal activity undertaken by a particular defendant may be considered “relevant conduct” attributable to that defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Iglesias, 535 F.3d 150, 160 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Asch, 207 F.3d 1238, 1243-44
holding prior conviction for possession of methamphetamine relevant to show knowledge and intent for conspiracy to distribute where the defendant claimed he was unaware that another person in the vehicle was distributing methamphetamine holding the state did not need this evidence of possession of 147 boxes of cold pills used to manufacture methamphetamine because the state had other convincing evidence to establish the defendants intent to deliver methamphetamine holding that methamphetamine retained for personal use by the defendant who had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute the substance and never argued any of the methamphetamine was lawfully obtained was properly considered contraband with which he was directly involved and therefore relevant conduct recognizing that evidence regarding the high price the defendant had paid for the substance in question was relevant to show the substance was cocaine holding that the enhancement applied where the defendant possessed a firearm in connection with possessing methamphetamine