Manzo

United States v. Manzo

Good Law
337 F. App'x 642
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 19, 2009Nos. 08-30343, 08-30344, 08-30345California301 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*644 MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Manzo (“Manzo”) was found guilty by a jury of conspiring to possess eighty-six cases of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and subsequently pled guilty to a separate charge of distribution of fifty or more grams of methamphetamine. The district court imposed a single sentence for both offenses, which Manzo now challenges on appeal. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recount them here. We affirm.

Manzo argues that the district court erred in determining that his offense involved 44,582.4 grams of pseudoephedrine, when this fact was not specifically found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. It was proper for the district court to determine the quantity of drugs as it did from a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Kilby, 443 F.3d 1135, 1140-41 (9th Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1086 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc)).

We reject Manzo’s contention that the district court erred in denying him a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility. He pled guilty to the distribution charge, but he went to trial on the conspiracy charge.

Manzo also argues 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.