Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-16-50097/USCOURTS-ca9-16-50097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan David Nixon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ALAN DAVID NIXON,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50097

D.C. No.

8:12-cr-00240-

JVS-10

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2016

Pasadena, California

Filed October 17, 2016

Before: Stephen S. Trott, John B. Owens,

and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

 Case: 16-50097, 10/17/2016, ID: 10161060, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 1 of 7
2 UNITED STATES V. NIXON

SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

Affirming the district court’s denial of a motion for 

modification of the conditions of probation, the panel held 

that a congressional appropriations rider that prohibits the 

Department of Justice from using certain funds to prosecute 

individuals for engaging in conduct permitted by state 

medical marijuana laws does not impact the ability of a 

federal district court to restrict the use of medical marijuana 

as a condition of probation.

COUNSEL

Marri Derby (argued), Newport Beach, California, for 

Defendant-Appellant.

Kevin M. Lally (argued), Chief, Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force Section; Lawrence S. Middleton, 

Chief, Criminal Division; Eileen M. Decker, United States 

Attorney; United States Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, 

California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

 

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It 

has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 16-50097, 10/17/2016, ID: 10161060, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 2 of 7
UNITED STATES V. NIXON 3

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We must decide whether a congressional appropriations 

rider that prohibits the Department of Justice from using 

certain funds to prosecute individuals for engaging in 

conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws impacts 

the ability of a federal district court to restrict the use of 

medical marijuana as a condition of probation. We hold that 

it does not.

I.

Defendant-Appellant Alan David Nixon pled guilty to 

aiding and abetting the maintenance of a drug-involved 

premise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2(a). The district court sentenced Nixon to a three-year 

term of probation. As a condition of probation, the district 

court required that Nixon refrain from unlawful use of a 

controlled substance and submit to periodic drug testing.

After Nixon had served approximately one year of his 

probationary term, Congress enacted an omnibus 

appropriations bill that included the following rider:

None of the funds made available in this Act 

to the Department of Justice may be used, 

with respect to the States of Alabama, 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 

Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South 

 Case: 16-50097, 10/17/2016, ID: 10161060, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 3 of 7
4 UNITED STATES V. NIXON

Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 

Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such 

States from implementing their own State 

laws that authorize the use, distribution, 

possession, or cultivation of medical 

marijuana.

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235 § 538, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 

(2014). Congress has since enacted a new appropriations bill 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, which 

includes essentially the same rider. Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 

Stat. 2242, 2332–33 (2015) (“Section 542” or the 

“appropriations rider”).

As relevant to this appeal, Nixon moved the district court 

to modify his conditions of probation on the ground that the 

appropriations rider required that he be permitted to use 

marijuana for medical purposes in compliance with 

California’s Compassionate Use Act, Cal. Health & Safety 

Code § 11362.5, during his probationary term. The district 

court denied that motion, concluding that whatever its 

impact on the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the 

appropriations rider had “no effect on the Court or the 

Probation Office, which is an arm of the Court.” To the 

contrary, the district court reasoned that it was statutorily 

required to prohibit use of federally controlled substances, 

including marijuana, as a condition of probation:

[P]ossession and use of marijuana are illegal 

under federal law. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). There 

is no medical necessity defense to violation 

of the statute. United States v. Oakland 

Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op, 532 U.S. 483, 494–

95 n.7 (2001). By statute, the Court must 

 Case: 16-50097, 10/17/2016, ID: 10161060, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 4 of 7
UNITED STATES V. NIXON 5

impose as a condition of probation that a 

defendant not violate any law. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3563(a)(1).

Nixon timely appealed.

II.

Nixon argues that the appropriations rider suspended the 

Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 821 et seq. (“CSA”), 

with respect to individuals possessing and using marijuana 

in compliance with the Compassionate Use Act (and similar 

laws in the states identified in the appropriations rider).1 

Accordingly, Nixon contends that both the DOJ and the 

federal courts are prohibited from enforcing the CSA against 

him.2

We review a district court’s decision regarding 

modification of probation conditions for abuse of discretion. 

 

1 We address Nixon’s other challenges to the district court’s denial 

of his modification motion in a concurrently filed memorandum 

disposition.

2 Nixon does not contend that the appropriations rider prohibited the 

DOJ from opposing the motion for modification of his probation 

conditions or otherwise participating in post-sentencing proceedings. 

We therefore need not decide whether the appropriations rider affects the 

DOJ’s ability to participate in post-sentencing proceedings. Indeed, 

Nixon waived any such claim in the district court by successfully arguing 

that the district court could not hold a probation revocation hearing 

without participation by the DOJ. Because the DOJ ultimately 

participated in his probation revocation hearing, there is no basis for 

Nixon’s claim that the district court violated the separation of powers 

doctrine by “proceeding in a probation violation hearing without the 

presence of the DOJ.”

 Case: 16-50097, 10/17/2016, ID: 10161060, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 5 of 7
6 UNITED STATES V. NIXON

See United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943, 946, 951 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We now affirm.

Nixon’s reading is not supported by the plain language 

of the appropriations rider and is foreclosed by our 

precedent. On its face, the appropriations rider restricts only 

the DOJ’s ability to use certain funds on particular 

prosecutions during a specific fiscal year. See United States 

v. McIntosh, — F.3d —, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 (9th Cir. 

Aug. 16, 2016) (observing that the restriction on DOJ’s use 

of the appropriated funds is “temporal” in nature). 

Accordingly, we have warned that individuals still face the 

possibility of prosecution under the CSA:

To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity 

from prosecution for federal marijuana 

offenses. The CSA prohibits the 

manufacture, distribution, and possession of 

marijuana. Anyone in any state who 

possesses, distributes, or manufactures 

marijuana for medical or recreational 

purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) 

is committing a federal crime. The federal 

government can prosecute such offenses for 

up to five years after they occur. See 

18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently 

restricts the government from spending 

certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. 

But Congress could restore funding 

tomorrow, a year from now, or four years 

from now, and the government could then 

prosecute individuals who committed 

offenses while the government lacked 

funding. . . . Nor does any state law 

“legalize” possession, distribution, or 

 Case: 16-50097, 10/17/2016, ID: 10161060, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES V. NIXON 7

manufacture of marijuana. Under the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state 

laws cannot permit what federal law 

prohibits. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Thus, 

while the CSA remains in effect, states 

cannot actually authorize the manufacture, 

distribution, or possession of marijuana. 

Such activity remains prohibited by federal 

law.

Id. at *11 n.5.

As this discussion in McIntosh makes clear, the CSA 

continues to apply in all 50 states, although the DOJ’s ability 

to use certain funds to pursue individual prosecutions under 

that statute remains circumscribed to the extent we explained 

in McIntosh as long as the appropriations rider is in effect. 

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by 

refusing to modify the conditions of Nixon’s probation to 

allow him to possess and use marijuana for medical purposes 

in violation of federal law.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district 

court’s denial of Nixon’s motion for modification of his 

conditions of probation.

 Case: 16-50097, 10/17/2016, ID: 10161060, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 7 of 7