UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arturo ARMENTA, Defendant-Appellant

Good Law
69 F.3d 304·95 Daily Journal DAR 14331·1995 WL 623075·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 30408·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8296
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 25, 199594-50330California2,727 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiggins, J.

OVERVIEW

Jose Arturo Armenta was indicted for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. Armenta entered a guilty plea conditioned on his right to appeal the trial court’s summary denial of his pretrial suppression motion. On appeal, a panel of this court remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing on remand, the district court denied Armenta’s suppression motion. The court also denied Armen-ta’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the government’s failure to ensure the availability of a material witness. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

FACTS

In August 1991, Armenta’s eodefendant Vargas recruited codefendant Raygoza-Her-nandez to transport cocaine from California to New York. The cocaine belonged to Ar-menta. Ruth Araceli-Lewis (who was not a defendant in this case) rented a motor home for the trip.

On August 24, 1991, Raygoza-Hernandez and a confidential informant (“Cl”) drove the motor home from Chula Vista to Temecula, California. Armenta and codefendant Batiz-Guzman…

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.