United States v. Raoul Espinoza-Barragan

977 F.2d 592 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raoul ESPINOZA-BARRAGAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-50859. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 16, 1992. * Decided Oct. 7, 1992. Before WIGGINS, KOZINSKI and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Raoul Espinoza-Barragan appeals his conviction on one count of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 , and on two counts of knowingly using and carrying a firearm during the commission of a narcotics offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). We affirm. 3 I. Facts. 4 Espinoza-Barragan met Douglas Leal in late 1989. Leal told Espinoza-Barragan that he would sell some of the methamphetamine that Espinoza-Barragan had made. Espinoza-Barragan told Leal that he didn't have any product because he didn't have any ephedrine, and to let him know if he heard of any ephedrine being available. Leal said…