Soto
United States v. Soto
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Juan Carlos Soto appeals his conviction and 33-month prison sentence imposed fol *624 lowing his guilty plea to importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.
Soto contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are unconstitutional pursuant to Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Our holdings 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) foreclose this argument.
In the alternative, Soto contends that the government was required to allege in the indictment that Soto knew the type and quantity of controlled substance he was alleged to have imported. This contention fails based on our holding in United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that Apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance).
Soto’s final contention is that the government breached the plea agreement by suggesting during the sentencing hearing that the…