Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0178-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quentin Lamont HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50412.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009 .
    Filed Jan. 26, 2009.
    Jeffrey Backhus, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Wayne Richard Young, Law Office of Wayne R. Young, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Quentin Lamont Howard appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(iii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Howard contends that the government engaged in sentencing entrapment by deliberately using his sexual attraction to the informant to induce him into selling a larger quantity of crack than he otherwise would have, thereby triggering a higher mandatory minimum sentence. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Howard failed to meet his burden of demonstrating entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Naranjo, 52 F.3d 245, 250 n. 13 (9th Cir.1995) (finding that the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate both a lack of intent and a lack of resources to complete the transaction in order to sustain a claim of sentencing entrapment).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.