Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel DE JESUS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-20
Citations: 35 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 01-50345; D.C. No. CR-01-00163-IEG
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel DE JESUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, FISHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 35
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel DE JESUS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-50345.
D.C. No. CR-01-00163-IEG.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 7, 2002.
Decided May 20, 2002.
Before PREGERSON, FISHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant-Appellant Daniel De Jesus ("De Jesus") appeals his conviction and sentence for knowing or intentional possession of, with intent to distribute, a con trolled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and for knowing or intentional importation of a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) and 960(a)(1). De Jesus was found with 33.55 kilograms of marijuana in his car and sentenced to twenty-one months' imprisonment.
De Jesus claims that the district court should have granted his motion for a mistrial because the prosecutor committed misconduct by addressing a series of questions to a government agent that attempted to elicit hearsay statements which conveyed the impression that a companion of De Jesus had implicated him in the charged offenses. To cure any possible prejudice that may have resulted from the alleged misconduct, a stipulation prepared by defense counsel was read to the jury. Because the stipulation served as a cautionary instruction and cured any prejudice to De Jesus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying De Jesus's motion for a mistrial.
De Jesus also argues that the government failed to prove that he imported marijuana into the United States, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960, because he was apprehended at the border and never entered the United States. We have expressly rejected this argument. See United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634,-, *6 (9th Cir.2002).
De Jesus next argues that § 841 and 960 are facially unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We have recently held that § 841 and 960 are constitutional. See United States v. Buckland, 277 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (section 841 is constitutional); United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.2002) (section 960 is constitutional).
Finally, we recently rejected an as-applied challenge with almost identical facts because the defendant was not exposed to the maximum sentence permitted by § 841 and 960, which was sixty months. See Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d at 1110 (rejecting as-applied challenge to § 841 and 960 by defendant sentenced to twenty-one months for 34.32 kilograms of marijuana). We now reject De Jesus's as-applied challenge because his sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum.
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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.