United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Stephen Daniels, Defendant-appellant, 953 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Appellant Stephen Daniels appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, arguing that his conviction for possession of metamphetamine is invalid because metamphetamine is not a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 811(g) (1) (1988) and its implementing regulations. We considered and rejected the same arguments in United States v. Durham, 941 F.2d 886, 888-90 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Caperell, 938 F.2d 975, 978-79 (9th Cir. 1991); and United States v. Kendall, 887 F.2d 240, 241 (9th Cir. 1989). Daniels' statutory arguments accordingly fail.

We also reject Daniels' constitutional arguments. Because the statutory scheme does not involve suspect classifications or fundamental rights, the government need have only a rational basis for treating Vicks Inhalers differently from methamphetamine generally. See Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 40 (1973). The differences in form and concentration between the two substances provides this rational basis.

For these reasons, the district court's denial of Daniels' section 2255 petition is

AFFIRMED.