United States v. Soto

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

June 13, 2002

Case

United States v. Soto

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

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

MEMORANDUM ** Juan Carlos Soto appeals his conviction and 33-month prison sentence imposed fol *624 lowing his guilty plea to importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. Soto contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are unconstitutional pursuant to Ap-prendi 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, Soto contends that the government was required to allege in the indictment that Soto 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 Apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance). Soto’s final contention is that the government breached the plea agreement by suggesting during the sentencing hearing that the negotiated …

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