Lewis

United States v. Lewis

Good Law
62 F. App'x 757
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 28, 2003Nos. 01-10270, 01-10275, 01-10276, 01-10295, 01-10296, 01-10308, 01-10328; D.C. No. CR-97-05266-RECCalifornia2,187 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Betty Lou Lewis (“Lewis”), Terry Crandall Mincey (“Mincey”), and Calvin Roberts (“Roberts”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal their jury convictions and sentences for multiple counts of conspiring to aid and abet the manufacture of a controlled substance and related offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (d)(2) and 846, and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (“ § 1956”). Lewis, Mincey, and Roberts were employees, and Mincey and Roberts were part owners, of Custom Lab Supply (“CLS”), a chemical retailer who sold chemicals that were diverted to illegal drug manufacturing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and upon careful consideration of the entire record, we affirm.

I Issues Applicable to All Appellants

A. Entrapment-by-Estoppel

We review de novo the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment-by-estoppel. United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 561 (9th Cir.2000). The defense of entrapment-by-estoppel applies when (1) an authorized government official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal, and (2) the defendant reasonably relies on the official’s statement. Id. at…

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.