United States v. Canchola-Espinoza
This text of 167 F. App'x 653 (United States v. Canchola-Espinoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Marcus Alberto Canchola-Espinoza appeals from his jury trial conviction for bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain, aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and bringing in illegal aliens without presentation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Canchola-Espinoza contends that the district court erred when it failed to dismiss his indictment because of an allegedly improper grand jury instruction. This court has held that this grand jury instruction is constitutional. United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184, 1204 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
167 F. App'x 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-canchola-espinoza-ca9-2006.