From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Rodriguez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 13, 2003
71 F. App'x 758 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


71 Fed.Appx. 758 (9th Cir. 2003) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-50550. D.C. No. CR-02-00740-TJW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 13, 2003

Submitted July 17, 2003.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KLEINFELD and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and POGUE, Judge.

Honorable Donald C. Pogue, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM

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.

Appellant Patricia Rodriguez challenges the district court's denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment against her, arguing that the grand jury instructions improperly limited the scope of the grand jury's inquiry in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Appellant's claim is foreclosed by this Court's decision in United States v. Marcucci, 299 F.3d 1156, 1159-60

Page 759.

(9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 934, 123 S.Ct. 1600, 155 L.Ed.2d 334 (2003). See also United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir.2003). We therefore affirm the district court's denial of the motion.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Rodriguez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 13, 2003
71 F. App'x 758 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

U.S. v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia RODRIGUEZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 13, 2003

Citations

71 F. App'x 758 (9th Cir. 2003)