Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant in this case challenges his conviction and sentence for importing marijuana under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, following a guilty plea. The appeal is reviewed by the court having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The appellant contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 960 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey. Additionally, he claims there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he knowingly or intentionally imported a specific quantity of marijuana. The court dismisses the constitutional challenge by referring to precedent established in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, which affirmed the statute's constitutionality post-Apprendi. The court also refutes the appellant's argument regarding the burden of proof for drug quantity, citing United States v. Carranza, which maintains that Apprendi does not affect the requirement to prove the defendant's knowledge of the type and amount of controlled substances. Ultimately, the court affirms the conviction, noting that the disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Burden of Proof for Knowledge of Drug Quantitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismisses the appellant's argument that the government must prove knowledge of the specific drug quantity, affirming that Apprendi does not alter this requirement.
Reasoning: The court dismisses Rubio-Soria's argument regarding the government's burden to prove knowledge of drug quantity, referencing United States v. Carranza, which clarifies that Apprendi does not alter the requirement for the government to demonstrate the defendant's knowledge of the type and amount of controlled substances.
Constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 960 Post-Apprendisubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejects the appellant's argument that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional following Apprendi v. New Jersey, relying on precedent.
Reasoning: The court rejects Rubio-Soria's constitutional challenge to § 960, citing precedent in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, which upheld the statute's constitutionality after Apprendi.
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court asserts its jurisdiction over the appeal of the guilty plea conviction, affirming the district court's decision.
Reasoning: The court affirms the conviction, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Non-Publication and Citation of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling specifies that the disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited within the circuit, except as allowed by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The ruling concludes with the affirmation of the conviction and notes that the disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit, except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.