United States v. Charles Lepp

MEMORANDUM

Charles Edward Lepp appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess 1,000 plants or more of marijuana with intent to distribute, and for manufacture and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court did not err in denying Lepp’s Motion in Limine seeking to present a religious defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Applying the criminal laws prohibiting possession and manufacture of marijuana to Lepp is the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interest in preventing diversion of sacramental marijuana to nonreligious users. C.f. United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1559 (9th Cir.1996) (declining to exclude the possibility that “the government may show that the least restrictive means of preventing the sale and distribution of marijuana is the universal enforcement of the marijuana laws”); contra Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 433 , 126 S.Ct. 1211 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006).

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Lepp an evidentiary hearing on his RFRA Motion.…