United States v. Flores

40 F. App'x 522
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 14, 2002·No. No. 01-50366; D.C. No. CR-00-03778-JTM·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Joanna Flores appeals her conviction by guilty plea, and 8 month sentence for one count of importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute de novo, United States v. Harris, 185 F.3d 999, 1003 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Flores contends that 21 U.S.C. § 960, the statute under which she was convicted, is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that § 960 is not facially unconstitutional).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Flores, 40 F. App'x 522 (9th Cir. 2002).

40 F. App'x 522 (United States v. Flores) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Michael Harris
185 F.3d 999 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Christina Maria Mendoza-Paz
286 F.3d 1104 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)