United States v. Harvey

659 F.3d 1272, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22160, 2011 WL 5223593
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 3, 2011
Docket11-50268
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 659 F.3d 1272 (United States v. Harvey) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Harvey, 659 F.3d 1272, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22160, 2011 WL 5223593 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

OPINION

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge:

Roshaja Harvey appeals from the district court’s order finding him in violation of his conditions of supervised release based upon his use of marijuana. He asserts that because he had a recommendation from a physician to use marijuana in California pursuant to the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, 1 he did not violate the possession prohibition 2 of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. 3

*1274 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We review the district court’s decision to revoke a term of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir.2008). However, we review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. See United States v. Cade, 236 F.3d 463, 465 (9th Cir.2000).

We affirm the district court for the reasons stated in its precise and accurate decision dated June 23, 2011, 4 which we adopt as our own, with one addition. The addition is: Whatever else “order” might mean under § 844(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, it does not include a mere recommendation from a physician pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act.

AFFIRMED.

1

.Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5.

2

. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).

3

. 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904.

4

. United States v. Harvey, 794 F.Supp.2d 1103, 2011 WL 2493744 (S.D.Cal. June 23, 2011).

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

Related

United States v. Waltrip
Ninth Circuit, 2024
United States v. Jackson
388 F. Supp. 3d 505 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2019)
United States v. Bey
341 F. Supp. 3d 528 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2018)
United States v. John Edward Schostag
895 F.3d 1025 (Eighth Circuit, 2018)
Gaetan H. Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Company, LLC
2018 ME 77 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2018)
United States v. John Hudson
701 F. App'x 603 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Johnson
228 F. Supp. 3d 57 (District of Columbia, 2017)
United States v. Esteban Banuelos Armenta, Jr.
642 F. App'x 762 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Nereida Huscher
637 F. App'x 421 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Jerry Wood, Jr.
634 F. App'x 170 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Jose Renderos
633 F. App'x 377 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.
767 F.3d 894 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Jeffrey Hilger
728 F.3d 947 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
659 F.3d 1272, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22160, 2011 WL 5223593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-harvey-ca9-2011.