Ecstasy Conspiracy Convictions and Sentences Affirmed, and Civil Procedure Issue

By FindLaw Staff on June 14, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In US v. Nguyen, No. 08-3940, the court of appeals affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute ecstasy, on the grounds that: 1) the parties' plea agreement did not contain an agreement not to prosecute other offenses; 2) venue was appropriate because there was no dispute that defendant's co-conspirator was in Iowa and committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy there; 3) it was not clear error for the district court to find that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights and, as a result, the district court did not err when it denied a motion to suppress; and 4) in light of the evidence that the instant conspiracy involved a variety of pills, many of which were not available for chemical analysis, it was not error for the district court to use the Typical Weight Per Unit Table.

Evermann v. BNSF Rwy. Co., No. 09-1708, concerned action in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that section 25-1640 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes obligated defendant to reimburse plaintiff for "productivity shares" lost because of his service on a federal grand jury.  The court of appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action and denial of plaintiff's motion to remand, on the ground that plaintiff's claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. section 25-1640 was preempted because his "alleged entitlement to productivity shares arises solely from the terms of the collective bargaining agreement," and interpretation of the CBA would be "certainly necessary" to resolve the claim.

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard