United States v. Nunez-Martinez
This text of 61 F. App'x 456 (United States v. Nunez-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
Ismael Nunez-Martinez appeals from his conditional guilty plea conviction and [457]*457sentence for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960.
Nunez-Martinez’s contention that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is facially unconstitutional following Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that United States v. Harris, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overrules United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 562 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002), and United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 573, 154 L.Ed.2d 459 (2002), is foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez, 314 F.3d 430, 438 (9th Cir.2002). Nunez-Martinez’s contention that the indictment was defective because it did not allege that Nunez-Martinez had the mens rea as to the drug type and quantity is foreclosed by United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 572, 154 L.Ed.2d 458 (2002). Nunez-Martinez’s conviction is
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 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 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nunez-martinez-ca9-2003.