United States v. Paul Ono

Good Law
918 F.2d 1462·1990 WL 179969·31 Fed. R. Serv. 1146·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20343·90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8472
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 23, 199089-50138California2,459 words

Opinion

Opinion

Leavy, J.

Paul Ono sought the help of a pharmacologist to manufacture l-(3-oxy-3 phenyl-propyl)-4 phenyl-4-propionoxypiperidine (“OPP/PPP”), a “designer drug” that is chemically similar to synthetic heroin. The pharmacologist became a government informant. Ono was arrested, charged, and convicted of various offenses, among them conspiracy to manufacture and procuring the manufacture of OPP/PPP in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 , 841(a)(1), and 846. His appeal challenges the admission of a prior conviction for purposes of showing his intent and knowledge in committing these offenses, and the district court’s determination of his base offense level for purposes of sentencing. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In the summer of 1987, Ono sought the help of Yogi Shanmugadhasan (“Shan”), a pharmacologist, to produce OPP/PPP, a substance similar to synthetic heroin. Shan agreed to produce the drug and to instruct Ono how to produce it. In January 1988, Ono and Shan planned to produce 600 kgs. of OPP/PPP. Ono supplied Shan with laboratory materials. Shan then became an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). On August 3, 1988, DEA agents…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.