UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DOUGLAS G. HOUSLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

9th Cir. | 1992-01-30
Nos. 90-10638, 91-10032
Before CHOY, SCHROEDER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
955 F.2d 622 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1992) Caution
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court affirmed the district court's denial of motions for a new trial and to dismiss the indictment.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of drug manufacturing and trafficking charges. He appealed the denial of his motions for a new trial and to dismiss the indict…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Housley appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial and his motion to dismiss the indictment following his conviction on a number of drug manufacturing and trafficking charges. A previous appeal in the same case resulted in an affirmance of his sentence. See United States v. Housley, 907 F. 2d 920 (9th Cir.1990).

The district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment which he appeals here was published at 751 F.Supp. 1446 (D.Nev.1990). The district court there correctly ruled that the FDA’s approval of over-the-counter products containing small amounts of methamphetamine does not require that methamphetamine be excluded from the criminal schedules of controlled substances. This court has already cited the district court’s decision with approval. See United States v. Caperell, 938 F. 2d 975 (9th Cir.1991).

In his appeal from the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial, Housley claims that a new trial is required because of government misconduct during discovery, allegedly knowing use of perjured testimony, and the alleged suppression of exculpatory materials. The appeal is without merit. The district court properly held that there was no sufficient factual support for any of the appellant’s charges.

AFFIRMED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw