Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David C. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-14
Citations: 37 F. App'x 882
Docket Number: No. 00-50713; D.C. No. CR-00-00074-MJL
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David C. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 37
Pages: 882–883

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David C. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-50713.
D.C. No. CR-00-00074-MJL.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2002.
Decided June 14, 2002.
Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument; accordingly, Wilson’s request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David C. Wilson appeals the judgment entered by the district court following his conditional guilty plea to importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Wilson contends that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Wilson also contends that his due process rights were violated because the government did not prove that he knew the type and quantity of the imported controlled substance. These contentions are foreclosed by our recent decisions in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that § 960 is not facially unconstitutional), and United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting appellant's argument that the government was required to prove that he knew the type and amount of the imported controlled substance).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. All outstanding motions are denied.