Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael Aguilar FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-16
Citations: 63 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 02-50489; D.C. No. CR-02-00133-MJL
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rafael Aguilar FERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT and GRABER, Circuit Judges. ■
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 369–370

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rafael Aguilar FERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 02-50489.
D.C. No. CR-02-00133-MJL.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2003.
Decided May 16, 2003.
Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT and GRABER, Circuit Judges. ■
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rafael Aguilar Fernandez appeals his conviction by guilty plea and the sentence imposed for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960.
Fernandez's contention that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that Harris v. U.S., 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overrules United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 562 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002) and United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 573, 154 L.Ed2d 459 (2002), is foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez, 322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003).
Fernandez's contention that a mens rea requirement applies to the elements of drug type and quantity is foreclosed by United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002) and Hernandez, 322 F.3d at 602.
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.