United States v. Martinez
This text of 61 F. App'x 476 (United States v. Martinez) 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
Jose Martinez challenges his sentence of twenty-four months for importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Martinez waived his right to appeal the district court’s two-point sentence enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.4 by failing to raise it in his opening brief. ‘We ‘will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.’ ”1 We conclude that the circumstances of this case do not warrant deviating from this general rule.2
Although Martinez did not waive his right to challenge the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 960,3 United States v. Mendoza-Paz
His final argument, that § 960 requires knowledge of the type and quantity of the controlled substance at issue, fails as well. When drug quantity and type expose a defendant to a higher statutory maximum sentence than he would otherwise receive, knowledge and quantity must be charged and proved.6 In circumstances such as these, however, when drug quantity and type did not expose a defendant to a higher maximum sentence, no such requirement applies.7
Therefore, we AFFIRM.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 F. App'x 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-martinez-ca9-2003.