N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
UNIT E D ST A T E S O F AM E RICA,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DUANE L E W IS E L E B Y ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 13-50462

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00159-M M M -5
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M argare t M
. M orrow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 9, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI and W AT FO RD , C irc uit Judge s, a nd B E NNE T T , *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JAN 11 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble M ark W . B e nne tt, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa t ion.pa ge 2

1. To a pply the pe na l tie s unde r 21 U.S.C . § 841(b), thegove rnm e nt ne e d not “prove tha

t the de fe nda

nt kne w the ty

pe or qua ntity of the c ontrolle d substa nc e .” Se e Unite d State s v. Je ffe rson, 791 F.3d 1013, 1015 (9th C ir. 2015); Unite d State s v. C arranz a , 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th C ir. 2002). It is suffic i e nt tha t Ele b y a dm i tte d tha

t the c ontrolle d substa

nc e he wa s c arry ing wa s, in fa c t,
a pproxim ate l y

4,922 gra

m s of powde r c oc a ine . B e c a use his se nte nc e of 90 m onths fa lls within the

sta tutory range unde r se c tion 841(b)(1)(B )(ii), it doe s n’ t viola te
e ithe r Appre ndi v. Ne w Je rse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), or Alle y ne v. Unite d State s, 133 S. C t. 2151 (2013).
2. R e ly ing on Unite d State s v. Enc arna c ión-R u iz , 787 F.3d 581 (1st C ir. 2015), Eleby

argue s tha

t he ple d guilty

only to a i ding a

nd a be tting. Although the indic tm e nt in Enc a

rna c ión-R uiz , like the indic tm e nt in this c a se , c ha rge d the de fe nda n ts with “ a iding a

n d a be tting e a c h othe r,” ne ithe r party in tha t c a se que stione d tha

t the de fe nda

nt wa s lia ble only a s a n a i de r and a

be ttor. Id. a

t 591–92. M ore o ve r, the ple a a g re e m e nt in Enc arna c ión-R u izshowe d tha

t the de fe nda

nt only
a dm itte d to “ a i ding a

nd a be tting a nothe r c o-de fe nda

n t.” Id. at 592 (c iting theple a
a gre e m e nt). B y

c ontra s t, Ele by ’ s indic t

m e nt a nd ple a a gre e m e n t a ffirm ative lypa ge 3

show tha t he wa s c ha

rge d with a

nd ple d guilty

to posse ssion with inte

nt to distributea

c ontrolle d s ubsta

nc e a s both a

princ ipa l an d a

n a ide r and a

be ttor.
3. B e c a use we don’ t e x am ine Ele by ’ s se n te nc e unde r the a iding a n d
a be tting the ory

of lia bility , we don’ t

a ddre ss whe the r R ose m ond v. Unite d State s, 134 S. C t. 1240 (2014) c ha nge d the m e ns re a

re quire m e nt for a iding a

nd a be tting a § 841(a )(1) offe nse . Se e Je ffe rson, 791 F.3d a t 1017.
AFFIRM E D.