United States v. Rodarte
Docket: No. 02-50319; D.C. No. CR-01-03621-BTM
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 21, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Ignacio Rodarte appeals his conviction and sentence resulting from a guilty plea for the importation of marijuana, violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. He argues that section 960 is unconstitutional based on the precedent set in Harris v. United States, but this argument is dismissed as it is countered by United States v. Hernandez, which upholds the constitutionality of the statute. Rodarte also claims that a mens rea requirement should apply to the drug type and quantity elements of his offense and that the indictment was inadequate for not alleging mens rea regarding these aspects. However, this contention is also rejected, referencing United States v. Carranza, which clarifies that such a mens rea requirement does not apply. The court ultimately affirms Rodarte's conviction and sentence. The memorandum specifies that it is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.