Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse BARBA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-29
Citations: 36 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 01-50267; D.C. No. CR-00-02554-IEG
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse BARBA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 919–919

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse BARBA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-50267.
D.C. No. CR-00-02554-IEG.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2002.
Decided May 29, 2002.
Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesse Barba-Martinez appeals the conviction and 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Barba-Martinez's contention that sections 952 and 960 are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Mendozar-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) and United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002).
Barba-Martinez's contention that the district court should have dismissed the indictment because it failed to allege that he knowingly imported a precise quantity and type of controlled substance is foreclosed by United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that Apprendi did not change the long established rule that the government need not prove that the defendant had knowledge of the type and amount of controlled substance).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provid-edby Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.