United States v. Charles D. Matlock

103 F.3d 142 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles D. MATLOCK, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-10176. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 4, 1996. * Decided Nov. 7, 1996. Before: NORRIS, KOZINSKI, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 We affirm Matlock's conviction for conspiring to manufacture and possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and possessing ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. 3 Matlock raises eight different grounds for reversal. First, Matlock argues that his conspiracy conviction must be reversed because the jury acquitted co-defendant Boyd of all charges, including conspiracy. However, the acquittal of all conspirators but one does not necessarily indicate that the jury found no agreement to act. United States v. Valles-Valencia, 823 F.2d 381, 382 (9th Cir.1987). Rather, each case must be examined to see whether evidence of…