Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melanie Gayle WHITTEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-15
Citations: 139 F. App'x 839
Docket Number: No. 03-50283
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melanie Gayle WHITTEN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 839–840

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melanie Gayle WHITTEN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-50283.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2005.
Decided July 15, 2005.
Charles Rees, AUSA, James V. Fazio, III, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michelle Betancourt, Federal Defender’s of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Melanie Gayle Whitten appeals her jury conviction for importation of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952, 960 and 841(a)(1). Whitten contends that the district court erred in instructing the grand jury that it could not consider the wisdom of criminal laws or punishment in deciding whether to indict, and in instructing the grand jury that its sole function was to determine probable cause. Whitten also contends that the federal drug statutes, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 960(a), are facially unconstitutional. Whitten's contentions are foreclosed by our recent en banc decision in United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184, 1186 and 1208 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm Whitten's conviction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.