United States v. Salem

Good Law
282 F. App'x 590
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 13, 2008No. 05-50564California674 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Mohammed Salem appeals his sentence. In June 2001, Salem was caught transferring boxes of pseudoephedrine, a methamphetamine precursor, between cars. A jury convicted Salem in September 2002 of conspiracy to possess and of possessing pseudoephedrine knowing and having reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (c)(2), 846.

The district court sentenced Salem in July 2005. The court applied the November 2004 version of the Guidelines, including U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.ll(a) — the provision covering the unlawful distribution, import, export, or possession of a listed chemical— because doing so would give Salem a lower sentencing range than would the 2001 version of § 2D1.11. United States v. Stevens, 462 F.3d 1169, 1170 (9th Cir.2006). A sentencing court must apply the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing unless doing so would create an ex post facto violation, in which case the court should apply the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense — here, the 2001 version. U.S.S.G. § lBl.ll(a)-(b)(l). See, e.g., United States v. Alfaro, 336 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir.2003).

Salem brings two ex post facto…

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.