TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Jimmie Kendall

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmie KENDALL, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Kendall, 887 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 12, 1989
Docket
No. 88-3279
Judges
Browning, Kozinski, Per Curiam, Rymer
Citations
887 F.2d 2401989 WL 1188441989 U.S. App. LEXIS 15512

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Jimmie Kendall appeals a conviction of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, a substance controlled under Schedule II, 21 U.S.C. § 812 , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), one count of distributing methamphetamine in violation of the same sections, and one count of carrying a firearm in the course of a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). Kendall maintains the government’s proof at trial varied from the charges in the indictment because the substance introduced into evidence, a powder form of methamphetamine, does not properly fall under Schedule II of 21 U.S.C. § 812 , which addresses only methamphetamine in its injectable liquid form, but falls instead under Schedule III, which includes substances containing methamphetamine "except in injectable liquid.”

The Attorney General, after proceedings required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 811 (a) and 812(b), may add substances to section 812 schedules or transfer substances between those schedules. 21 U.S.C. § 811 (a). Kendall contends the original rescheduling of all forms of methamphetamine to Schedule II, accomplished in 1971 by the Director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (“BNDD”), see 36 Fed.Reg. 12734 (1971), was ineffectual because BNDD lacked authority at that time to reschedule controlled substances. He admits the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) now has such authority, but argues they have never properly exercised it with respect to methamphetamine.

But see United States v. Jones, 852 F.2d 1235, 1236-37 (9th Cir.1988);

United States v. Burnes, 816 F.2d 1354, 1358-60 (9th Cir.1987).

Whether or not DEA ever followed the procedures and made the findings required to reschedule methamphetamine, BNDD did so in 1971.

See 36 Fed.Reg. 9563 (1971) (notice of hearing regarding proposed rescheduling); 36 Fed.Reg. 12734 (1971) (report of hearing and findings, order rescheduling methamphetamine). Notwithstanding Kendall’s argument to the contrary, the Attorney General delegated to BNDD his authority over the scheduling of controlled substances. 28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (1971).

1

We conclude methamphetamine was a Schedule II controlled substance as alleged, and the proof at trial did not vary *242 from the allegations of the indictment in that respect.

AFFIRMED.

1

. In 1971, 28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (1971) provided: "Subject to the general supervision of the Attorney General, the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions vested in the Attorney General by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by the Director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.”

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 32 cases

View all citing references →
1990: 21991: 71992: 101994: 21997: 11998: 12004: 52005: 22006: 219902026peak 1992 · 10

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Bonnie Ann Durham, United States of America v. Jerome Sherman Stanley941 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1991)
  2. United States v. Jimmie L. Kendall29 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 1994)
  3. United States v. James Michael Wilhoit920 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1990)
  4. United States v. William Clinton Roark924 F.2d 1426 (8th Cir. 1991)
  5. United States v. Elmer Dean Allison953 F.2d 870 (5th Cir. 1992)
  6. United States v. Gregorio MacEdo and Victor Hugo Contreras406 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2005)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Turner187 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. 2006)
  2. United States v. Walters163 F. App'x 674 (10th Cir. 2006)
  3. United States v. Gregorio MacEdo and Victor Hugo Contreras406 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2005)
  4. United States v. Macedo, GregorioNo. 02-3563 (7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2005)
  5. United States v. Gregorio MacEdo and Victor Hugo Contreras371 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2004)
  6. United States v. Macedo, GregorioNo. 02-3563 (7th Cir. June 15, 2004)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Burnes, 816 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1987) 35
United States v. Jones, 852 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1988) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list