Padilla-Baltazar

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Padilla-Baltazar appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960. Padilla-Baltazar’s contention that sections 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002); and United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, *371 535 U.S. 1105 , 122 S.Ct. 2314 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002).

His contention that the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 , 122 S.Ct. 2406 , 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overruled the decisions in Buckland and Mendoza-Paz is foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez, 314 F.3d 430 , as amended, 322 F.3d 592 , 2003 WL 730663 (9th Cir. Mar.5, 2003).

Padilla-Baltazar also contends that the district court erred under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 by applying a two-level downward adjustment in sentence for his minor role in the offense rather than a four-level downward adjustment for his minimal role as a courier. He lacks standing to challenge the district…