United States v. Ernest Caravalho

990 F.2d 1261 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Ernest CARAVALHO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-10557. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 9, 1993. Decided April 16, 1993. Before GOODWIN, NOONAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Appellant Ernest Caravalho (Caravalho) appeals his jury conviction for cultivating in excess of 1,000 marijuana plants. He raises numerous arguments on appeal. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. I. SUFFICIENCY OF INDICTMENT 3 We review de novo the sufficiency of an indictment. United States v. Dischner, 960 F.2d 870, 886 (9th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 974 F.2d 1502 (1992). 4 In United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir.1992), this court recently held that where an indictment does not contain all elements…