United States v. Raymond Daugavietis

976 F.2d 738 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond DAUGAVIETIS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-30145. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 15, 1992.* Decided Sept. 17, 1992. Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, FLETCHER and CANBY, Circuit Judges. [1] MEMORANDUM** [2] In light of the district court's express findings regarding the joint nature of the grow operation, it correctly attributed all 140 plants to Daugavietis. [3] We resolved the constitutional issues Daugavietis raises in United States v. DeLeon, 955 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir.1992), and we are bound to follow our prior decision. [4] AFFIRMED. Footnotes [-s] * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 [-s-s] ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3