Madriaga

MEMORANDUM **

Frank Macias Madriaga appeals from his conviction, by jury trial, of one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846 and one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by violence or threats in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a).

Madriaga’s first contention is that section 846 is facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Given our recent decision in United States v. Buckland, 277 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2002), which held that section 841 is facially constitutional, Madriaga’s argument is foreclosed. Buckland also controls and requires us to reject his further contention that Apprendi requires a new trial. See Buckland, 277 F.3d at 1183-87 .

Madriaga next argues that the government failed to establish a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to support jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act. Madriaga’s extortion scheme targeted a drug trafficker. For Hobbs Act purposes, drug traffickers are engaged in interstate commerce. See United States v. Jones, 30 F.3d 276, 285-86 (2nd Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Hanigan, 681 F.2d…