Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael E. POST, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-18
Citations: 12 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 00-50591; D.C. No. CR-00-00196-JTM
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael E. POST, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 12
Pages: 522–524

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael E. POST, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-50591.
D.C. No. CR-00-00196-JTM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 5, 2001.
Decided June 18, 2001.
Before D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael E. Post appeals his conviction and sentence on charges of importation of marijuana and of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841, 952, and 960.
(1) Post argues that just as an alien has not entered the United States if he does not get clear of official restraints, a person has not imported drugs, if he immediately falls into the clutches of the customs officers. We rejected that argument over three decades ago. See Daut v. United States, 405 F.2d 312, 316 (9th Cir.1968). We shall not recede from that decision now.
(2) Post also avers that the district court violated his constitutional rights when it held his decision to remain silent at sentencing against him. Perhaps the district court would have erred had it done that. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 316-17, 327-29, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 1309, 1314-15, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999); United States v. LaPierre, 998 F.2d 1460, 1467 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Safirstein, 827 F.2d 1380, 1388 (9th Cir.1987). But it did not. In fact, it expressly disclaimed doing that, and we have no reason to dub the court a facticide. There was no error.
AFFIRMED on the issues discussed above.
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.
. United States v. Pacheco-Medina, 212 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir.2000).
. We vacate submission of Post's claims under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) in an order filed concurrently with this disposition.