United States Ninth Circuit

Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute ecstasy are affirmed where: 1) substantive collateral attacks on permanent scheduling orders were impermissible in criminal cases where defendants' sentences would be determined by those scheduling orders; and 2) the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because it tracked the language of the conspiracy statute, identified a location and co-conspirators, and alleged the purpose of the conspiracy. However, defendant's sentence is vacated where the district court made inadequate findings to justify its reliance on a temporary amendment to U.S.S.G. section 2D1.1 that increased ecstasy-related penalties.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/03/2009
• Decided 01/05/2010
• Published 01/05/2010

Judges

• Before CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, THOMAS G. NELSON and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Benjamin L. Coleman and Ethan A. Baloch, Coleman & Baloch, LLP, Attorneys for defendant-appellant Mark Stephen Forrester., Karen P. Hewitt, Bruce R. Castetter, Todd W. Robinson, and Stewart M. Young, Attorneys for plaintiff-appellee United States of America.