U.S. v. Skurdal, No. 91-30441

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Citation: 993 F.2d 886,1993 WL 164651
• Docket Number: No. 91-30441
• Parties: NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustav SKURDAL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 27 April 1993

Page 886

993 F.2d 886 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gustav SKURDAL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-30441. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 27, 1993. ^*
Decided May 17, 1993.

Before: BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

Gustav Skurdal appeals pro se his convictions following jury trial for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and attempted manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, unlawful possession of listed essential chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(33-34), 841(d)(1), and distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Skurdal contends the district court had neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction in this case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court's assumption of jurisdiction. United States v. Visman, 919 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1990).

In Skurdal's rambling and often incoherent filings in this court, we discern three main arguments challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court: (1) Congress is without authority to enact criminal laws purporting to limit the actions of the citizens of the various states; (2) methamphetamine is not a properly listed controlled substance; and (3) Titles 18 and 21 of the United States Code were never enacted into positive law and therefore the statutes therein are without effect.

We have previously recognized that "Congress may constitutionally regulate intrastate drug activity under 21 U.S.C. § 841." Id., 919 F.2d at 1393. We have also rejected the contention that methamphetamine is not a controlled substance because it may be found in certain over-the-counter medications. See United States v. Durham, 941 F.2d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir.1991). Finally, "Congress's failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable." Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1985) (upholding application of requirements of Internal Revenue Code even...