Minore

United States v. Minore

Good Law
40 F. App'x 536
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 17, 2002No. 99-30381, 00-30025, 00-30052; D.C. No. CR-98-00355-TSZCalifornia2,155 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gary W. Minore and Arthur Torsone appeal their sentences imposed following their guilty pleas to various drug and money laundering crimes. Prommateta China-wat appeals his conviction after jury trial and sentence. By a separately filed opinion, we have addressed the claims of Mi-nore and Chinawat arising under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We address defendants’ remaining claims in this memorandum disposition. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we discuss only the issues raised in their briefs.

United States v. Minore

I. SENTENCING ENTRAPMENT

Minore contends that the district court erred in denying him a downward departure on the basis of sentencing entrapment, arguing that because the credit extension offered by law enforcement for the third “reverse sting” load enabled him to purchase a larger quantity of marijuana than he could otherwise afford, his base offense level was inappropriately increased from 32 to 36 and he was over-sentenced by 67 months.

The Sentencing Guidelines recognize sentencing entrapment as a basis for departure. See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2D1.1, App. n. 15 (1998)…

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.