Madsen

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Dirk Madsen appeals his conviction for possession of iodine, a precursor to the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (c)(2), or aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Madsen was arrested while in possession of seven percent iodine tincture solution, and he contends that the government failed to present sufficient evidence that he possessed iodine. We review a sufficiency of evidence challenge de novo. United States v. Naghani, 361 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir.2004).

Madsen argues that the government failed to present sufficient evidence that the iodine within the iodine tincture solution maintained a distinct chemical identity, as required by United States v. Lo, 447 F.3d 1212, 1221 (9th Cir.2006) (a chemical “commingled with other substances” can be considered a listed chemical for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (c) if it “maintain[s] its distinct chemical identity within the combination rather than changing into a different chemical”).

Madsen’s argument fails because the government did offer such proof. In Lo, expert testimony that the controlled substance at issue, ephedrine, was “contained” within and could be…