Guzman

MEMORANDUM **

Isidro Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 for importation of marijuana.

Guzman first argues the district court erred in failing to make an inquiry and finding as to the quantity of marijuana involved in the offense pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Guzman’s argument fails because he pled guilty to Count I of the indictment which alleged that he did knowingly and intentionally import approximately 18.65 kilograms of marijuana. Under Rule 11, the court must inform a defendant of the nature of the charge to which he is pleading guilty and accept a factual basis for the plea. FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c); United States v. Lon goria, 113 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir.1997). The district court informed Guzman of the nature of the charge and meaningfully questioned him as to the factual basis for his plea.

Guzman also argues that the district court sentenced and convicted him pursuant to unconstitutional statutes. The drug sentencing statutes at issue in this case, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, have been held to be facially constitutional. See United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting…