Lucero

MEMORANDUM *

1. Defendant Andrew Lucero appeals his convictions for conspiracy and possession of methamphetamine and marijuana with the intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a) and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . He also appeals his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

2. Lucero argues that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence showing that venue for the substantive offenses was proper in Montana. Before trial, Lucero moved to dismiss the indictment for improper venue. In ruling on a pre-trial motion to dismiss for lack of venue, the court must determine whether the claimed venue is proper from the allegations in the indictment. United States v. Jensen, 93 F.3d 667, 669 (9th Cir.1996). “[T]he crime of drug possession with intent to distribute, or aiding and abetting such possession, occurs where the principal commits it.” United States v. Mendoza, 108 F.3d 1155, 1156 (9th Cir.1997). Here, the indictment charged that Lucero or a co-conspirator possessed the contraband in the district of Montana; taking this allegation as true, the district court correctly denied Lucero’s motion to dismiss. Lucero did not renew his motion to dismiss for lack of…