United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Norman Dean Rhoades, Defendant-appellant, 972 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseBefore KILKENNY, GOODWIN and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Norman Dean Rhoades appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for manufacture of one hundred or more marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Rhoades contends that he did not "manufacture" marijuana because he grew the marijuana plants solely for personal consumption. We affirm
Where a statute is unambiguous, a court need not examine the legislative history and intent in order to interpret the statute. United States v. Bressette, 947 F.2d 1361, 1362 (9th Cir. 1991). Rhoades' contention that the manufacture statute is ambiguous is in vain.
Rhoades admittedly grew a large number of marijuana plants, which constitutes production and hence manufacture pursuant to the definitions found at 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(15) and (22). Rhoades' assertion, that possession rather than manufacture is the correct chargeable offense where one grows the marijuana for one's personal consumption, is without merit. See United States v. Roberts, 747 F.2d 404, 405 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 (1988).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
