Mendoza-Carillo
United States v. Mendoza-Carillo
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Pedro Mendoza-Carillo appeals his conviction pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, for importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1291, and we affirm.
Mendoza-Carillo contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We have recently rejected this argument in our decisions in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 960), and United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174 , 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 952).
Mendoza-Carillo also contends that the government had to prove that he knew the drug type and quantity beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument similarly lacks merit. “Apprendi did not change the long established rule that the government need not prove that the defendant knew the type and amount of a controlled substance that he imported or possessed; the government need only show that the defendant knew that he imported or possessed some controlled substance.” United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir.2002).