« CA11 on immunity for state legislators | Main | CA6 on Tax Rate on Unrelated Business Income of a Sec. 501(c)(9) Association »

April 14, 2005

Comments

Lynn Fant

Although the revised opinion states that the initial brief raised an Apprendi type claim, my review of the brief available on line did not find a citation in the brief to the 6th Am, Apprendi, Blakely, etc. The argument was that the district court clearly erred in finding more than X # of marijuana plants. Has anyone else looked at this, and/or is there a different brief???

The comments to this entry are closed.