Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04077/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Hinojosa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir;.Uit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 2 5 1 O 

l\OBFRT L. f-IOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FRANK HINOJOSA, also known as 

Jose Rodriguez-Alaya, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-4077 

) (D.C. No. 89-CR-0041S) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and SEAY,** Chief Judge. 

**Honorable Frank H. Seay, Chief Judge, United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, sitting by 

designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-4077 Document: 01019961683 Date Filed: 01/25/1990 Page: 1 
Defendant Frank Hinojosa was charged with possession of a 

controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l) (1982), possessing a firearm during and in 

relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c) (1982), and possessing an unregistered firearm, as 

defined by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) and (f) (1982), in violation of 26 

U.S.C. § 5861 (1982). After a jury trial, defendant was convicted 

on all counts. 

On appeal, defendant challenges the characterization of a 

device found in his car as a "destructive device," as defined by 

26 u.s.c. § 5845(f). We disagree with defendant's reading of the 

statute. The device he possessed was a bomb, which is not 

required by the statute to contain a propellant charge. 

Defendant also argues that his involvement in the attempted 

sale of cocaine was the result of a police informant's urgings and 

therefore constituted entrapment. This issue was presented to the 

jury under a proper instruction on entrapment. We have reviewed 

the record, and we are persuaded that the evidence was sufficient 

to convict defendant on all counts. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-4077 Document: 01019961683 Date Filed: 01/25/1990 Page: 2