Opinion ID: 684947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Juror Instruction

Text: 29 The district court instructed the jury concerning conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a). Appellants claim that the district court should have instructed the jury on what they claim is a lesser-included offense, distribution of a listed chemical under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(d). Even if we were to adopt the appellants' novel, and highly suspect legal argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that no rational juror could conclude that the defendants were guilty of the lesser offense but not the greater--that is, that appellants had reasonable cause to believe that the acid would be used to manufacture methamphetamine but did not intend its manufacture. See United States v. Roston, 986 F.2d 1287, 1291 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 114 S.Ct. 206 (1993); United States v. Gutierrez, 990 F.2d 472, 477 (9th Cir.1990). 30 Similarly, we find that the appellant's alternative argument--that commission of the offense must be completed under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a) but not completed under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(d)--to be incorrect as a matter of law. See, e.g., United States v. Myers, 993 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in instructing the jury.