Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Robert Gonzales

United States v. Robert Gonzales, 461 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-28
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The appellant, Gonzales, was convicted on six counts of an eleven count indictment which charged him with conspiracy with one Martinez to possess heroin with intent to distribute it, and to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 846; and with possession with intent to distribute heroin and distribution of that drug, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). He was sentenced to serve six concurrent terms of eight years each. On this appeal, he asserts three claims of error. The first two claims are directed to five of the six counts but not to the conspiracy count. This count is unchallenged, except to the extent that the defense of entrapment may be available to him.

Citator

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

Cited by
7 opinions
UNITED STATES v. GONZALES,461 F.2d 1000(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROBERT GONZALES,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1110.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 6, 1972.
Rehearing Denied June 28, 1972.
Mitchell W. Egers, of Hanson Egers, Inc., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Barry Russell, Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U.S. Attys., William D. Keller, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before MERRILL, TRASK and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The appellant, Gonzales, was convicted on six counts of an eleven count indictment which charged him with conspiracy with one Martinez to possess heroin with intent to distribute it, and to distribute heroin,21 U.S.C. § 846; and with possession with intent to distribute heroin and distribution of that drug,21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to serve six concurrent terms of eight years each.

[2] On this appeal, he asserts three claims of error. The first two claims are directed to five of the six counts but not to the conspiracy count. This count is unchallenged, except to the extent that the defense of entrapment may be available to him. For reasons hereinafterPage 1001stated, we hold that the defense of entrapment is not so available.

[3] We deem it unnecessary to consider the other errors claimed in the challenges to five of the six counts. The appellant was found guilty on all six and sentenced on each to the same term, the sentences to be served concurrently. The validity of the sentence on the conspiracy count is sufficient to dispose of the case now before us. Benton v. Maryland,395 U.S. 784, 791, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); Hirabayashi v. United States,320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943).

[4] The entrapment which is claimed relates to transactions which occurred between the government informant and appellant's coconspirator. Appellant admits the informant had no direct contact with him. It is well established in this circuit that a defendant may not seek shelter under the defense of entrapment claimed by another. United States v. Sanchez,440 F.2d 649(9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Azadian,436 F.2d 81(9th Cir. 1971); Carbajal-Portillo v. United States,396 F.2d 944(9th Cir. 1968).

[5] The judgment is affirmed.