Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quentin Lamont HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-26
Citations: 310 F. App'x 178
Docket Number: No. 07-50412
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quentin Lamont HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 178–178

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.