Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Rogers

549 F.2d 107

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1976-12-10
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • rejecting argument laws regulating marijuana were irrational

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Rogers. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ROGERS,549 F.2d 107(9th Cir. 1976)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. NORMAN ARTHUR ROGERS, APPELLANT.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. JOHN MICHAEL HIGHFILL, APPELLANT.
Nos. 76-1089, 76-1567.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
December 10, 1976.
Page 108
Benjamin O. Andersen (argued), of Gladstein, Leonard, Patsey Andersen, San Francisco, Cal., Mark I. Soler (argued), of Soler, Treuhaft, Walker, Brown Cooper, Oakland, Cal., for appellants.

Raymond D. Pike, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Reno, Nev., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Before ELY, CARTER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] In these combined appeals from convictions arising out of transactions with 4,293 pounds of marijuana, the appellants challenge as irrational and therefore unconstitutional the laws and regulations denouncing the importation and related possessory offenses and conspiracies to commit those offenses in respect to marijuana.

[2] They also ask us to hold, on the "cannabis species" defense, that the particular species of marijuana here involved is not the one Congress intended to denounce in the challenged laws. Neither point requires discussion.

[3] The constitutionality of the marijuana laws has been settled adversely to the appellants in this circuit.United States v.Rodriquez-Camacho,468 F.2d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 1972),cert.denied,410 U.S. 985, 93 S.Ct. 1512, 36 L.Ed.2d 182 (1973);seealso United States v. Kiffer,477 F.2d 349, 356-357 (2d Cir. 1973),cert. denied,414 U.S. 831, 94 S.Ct. 62, 38 L.Ed.2d 65 (1973).

[4] The so-called species defense was rejected by this court inUnited States v. Kelly,527 F.2d 961(9th Cir. 1976).

[5] Affirmed.