Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven ERCKERT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-24
Citations: 314 F. App'x 45
Docket Number: No. 07-10364
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven ERCKERT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven ERCKERT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10364.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 24, 2008.
Philip A. Ferrari, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
John Ward, Law Offices of John Ward, San Francisco, CA, for Defendanb-Appel-lant.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mark Steven Erckert appeals from his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to man ufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Erckert contends that the district court committed plain error, warranting reversal of his conviction, because the district court did not instruct the jury that a buyer-seller relationship is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. However, given the strength of the government's case, Erc-kert's failure to request a buyer-seller instruction, and the fact that Erckert "d[id] not rely on the theory of defense embodied in that instruction at trial," the district court's failure to offer the instruction sua sponte was not plain error. See United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Span, 970 F.2d 573, 578 (9th Cir.1992).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.