Hanson

United States v. Hanson

Good Law
43 F. App'x 52
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 26, 2002No. 99-50776; D.C. No. CR-97-00011-RT-01California1,130 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

ORDER

Effective immediately, the above-captioned case is resubmitted.

MEMORANDUM **

Eric Robert Hanson appeals his conviction and his sentence for possessing with intent to distribute marijuana plants. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I. Failure to give an informant instruction

Frank Pergola was a major witness at Hanson’s trial. He testified that Hanson hired him to cultivate marijuana at the Post Road residence. Pergola also admitted that he had pled guilty under a cooperation agreement, and that he hoped for a lesser sentence in return for his testimony. He also admitted that in early meetings *54 with government agents, he lied about how he met Hanson, to protect a friend who had introduced him to Hanson.

The instructions given to the jury included an accomplice instruction. Hanson now argues that the court also should have included an informant instruction. Because Hanson did not object at trial, we review for plain error. United States v. Monzon-Valenzuela, 186 F.3d 1181, 1182 (9th Cir.1999). To reverse for plain error we must find “(1) there was error; (2) the…

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.