« 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


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.