Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose HERNANDEZ-TORRES, Defendant -Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-27
Citations: 45 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 00-50610; D.C. No. CR-00-00981-MLH
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose HERNANDEZ-TORRES, Defendant —Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 45
Pages: 702–703

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose HERNANDEZ-TORRES, Defendant —Appellant.
No. 00-50610.
D.C. No. CR-00-00981-MLH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2001.
Submission Vacated in Part July 6, 2001.
Resubmitted Aug. 27, 2002.
Decided Aug. 27, 2002.
Before D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
Jose Hernandez-Torres appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and for importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 960. We have jurisdiction and we affirm.
Hernandez-Torres' contention that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), renders 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 960 unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 563-68 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) and by United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002), respectively.
His argument that the government was required to prove that he knew the type and quantity of the drug he possessed is foreclosed by United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002).
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.