185 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 1999), 97-10198, U.S. v. Jung
|Citation:||185 F.3d 870|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur John JUNG, aka Charles Peter Sotirkys, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||May 27, 1999|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted May 13, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Eugene F. Lynch, District Judge, Presiding.
Before FERGUSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge. 2
Arthur John Jung, aka Charles Peter Sotirkys (hereinafter "Sotirkys"), appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting the distribution of 2.4 tons of hashish from a vessel in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 1903(a). The conviction stems from an international conspiracy to transport seventy tons of hashish from Pakistan to Canada. The details of that conspiracy are set forth in United States v. Medjuck, 48 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (9th Cir.1995) (Medjuck I), and need not be repeated here.
Following Medjuck I, in which this court reversed Sotirkys' conviction because the district court had improperly determined certain jurisdictional issues, the district court issued an opinion concluding that Sotirkys and his co-conspirator Medjuck were properly subject to the court's jurisdiction. United States v. Medjuck, 937 F.Supp. 1368, 1388-94 (N.D.Cal.1996) (Medjuck II). The two co-conspirators were then tried separately, and Medjuck was convicted of three counts of drug smuggling. His conviction was affirmed in United States v. Medjuck, 156 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.1998) (Medjuck III). Sotirkys was convicted of just one count--aiding and abetting the distribution of 2.4 tons of hashish from a vessel.
On appeal, Sotirkys first argues that the district court gave an improper jury instruction. We review de novo a claim that a jury instruction violates due process. United States v. Warren, 25 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir.1994). Three of Sotirkys' accomplices testified on behalf of the government, including David McNelly. McNelly testified that he worked for Sotirkys and was present on one of the boats to make sure the hashish was delivered properly. However, he also testified that he did not have any...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP