United States v. Howard
This text of 310 F. App'x 178 (United States v. Howard) 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
Quentin Lamont Howard appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(iii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Howard contends that the government engaged in sentencing entrapment by deliberately using his sexual attraction to the informant to induce him into selling a larger quantity of crack than he otherwise would have, thereby triggering a higher mandatory minimum sentence. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Howard failed to meet his burden of demonstrating entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Naranjo, 52 F.3d 245, 250 n. 13 (9th Cir.1995) (finding that the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate both a lack of intent and a lack of resources to complete the transaction in order to sustain a claim of sentencing entrapment).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th 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
310 F. App'x 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-howard-ca9-2009.