Mamea

United States v. Mamea

Good Law
101 F. App'x 232
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 15, 2004No. 03-10118California535 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Eti Mamea appeals his 235-month sentence of imprisonment for aiding and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 .

In order to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(G) the district court must advise the defendant of the elements of the charge and must ensure that the defendant understands them. United States v. Minore, 292 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir.2002). The district court judge conducted a thorough and complete Rule 11 colloquy. Mamea was twice informed of all elements of the charge against him. Mamea affirmed that he understood the charges against him.

Rule 11(b)(3) requires the judge to determine there is a factual basis for the guilty plea before entering the judgment. Mamea told the judge that he planned to give the drags to somebody else to sell. “A defendant need not actually sell drugs to aid and abet in their distribution. Rather, it is enough that the defendant associate with the criminal venture, participate in it, and seek by actions to make it succeed.” United States v. Savinovich, 845 F.2d 834, 838 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted). After 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.