Opinion of the Court — United States v. Dominguez

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 18, 2002
Case: United States v. Dominguez
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Victor Manuel Dominguez appeals his conviction and 12-month and 1-day prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea to importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Dominguez contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are unconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Our holdings in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 960), and United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174 , 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 952) foreclose this argument. In the alternative, Dominguez contends that the government was required to allege in the indictment that Dominguez knew the type and quantity of controlled substance he was alleged to have imported. This contention fails based on our holding in United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that Ap-prendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance). Dominguez’s final contention is that the district court committed plain error, see United States v. Vonn , — U.S.—, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 10…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.