Button Ads!         



                  GrowStoreFinder.com Grow Shop Directory            1-15-2014                              GreenBookPages.com Grow Shop’s Directory Product Reviews 
         Local grow shops and hydroponic store locator with reviews                      
Find Local Hydroponics Shops and Grow Stores.   10-10-14  
Mega Text Ad’s Spaces Available! 
                                                                                   Advertise On All 3 Of Our Marijuana Websites   


  We Update Daily!

Chris S. Kenoyer. Owner
MMJ Patient, Medical Activist,
Online Patients Advocate, 
Online MMJ News Journalist 

My Medical Bio 

Follow Us Now On Twitter


Or Follow Us Now
  On Facebook

        Email Us Here

Or Email Us Securely Here
NEW 100% Encrypted Email Server

OLP’s Free MMJ News EList  
Get The Latest In MMJ News

Press Contact Info

 Is CBD?  A Possible Cure For
Breast Cancer..? And All The Other
Many Forms & Types Of Cancer..?
Learn More About CBD Here


Advertise Here On OnlinePot
Rates As Low As  $50 a Year
24/7 – 365 Days A Year Of Sales! 


Website Navigational Links

Main Start Page 2


Latest Marijuana News Reports


Parody’s Cartoons US 
Government Grown Pot,
Term Papers, School 
Reports, & Thesis’s On  
Marijuana & Cannabis


Amsterdam A to Z


Canadian Marijuana Websites


Church’s & Pot Cannabis


Co-Ops, Clinics, Dispensary’s 


Marijuana Doctors & Clinics 


Pot Cooking Recipes


Drug Testing A To Z


Pot Games


Pot Songs Video’s


100’s Of Grow Guides  


Hash A- Z


Cannabis Legal Info, Drug 
Lawyers, State, Federal Laws, 
State  & Supreme Court Rulings


POW’s Of The MMJ War!


Other Marijuana Websites 
Reciprocal Link Exchange


Medical Marijuana Studies, 
Research Report’s, Medical
Cannabis Clinic Study’s


Parody’s & Cartoons  
When We All Need A Good Laugh!  


Avoiding Online MOM Scammers
Newly Re-Updated Info!


The Politics Of Contraband 
Medical Marijuana In The Mail?


The Hall Of Shame Section
The Online MOM Scammers 


Online MOM Providers Ads


Politicians & Voters Rights


Medical Marijuana, Strains 


The OG  Marijuana Strain Guide


800+ FAQ Growing Questions


Patients Spiritual Guidance,
Free Online Crisis Help Center


Online Marijuana Seed Banks


Maximum Security Section 
      Just Updated!    


Traveling Tips, Guides, B & B’s


Vaporizers A To Z


Online Pot Video’s & Movies


Please Visit Both Of Our Sister Websites!

Maine Patients Coalition.org

The Reefer Madness Teaching Museum.org 

Listen Right Here Online! 
To Original 1930-1950’s
Reefer Madness Propaganda 
Radio Shows And Programs
Before TV There Were 
"Radio Stars"





Legal Disclaimer

Guest Book

Translate Text or Web Page Go To:
Language Tools Google Translations

Article Submissions &  News
Reports Are Always Gladly
Accepted Here.


No part of this site maybe used or
reproduced in whole or in part
without the written consent of the
Copyright Owner

1999-2014 Copyright
© All rights reserved

OnlinePot assumes no legal liability for any products, or information or  
news posted, services offered,  Or
any contests or give away’s offered.



 The Courts, The DEA, and Drugs, Marijuana


     A great listing of old marijuana drug case law,  & How the DEA Works


          Date: 30 Dec 1994 

                            Return To OnlinePot’s Legal Section Main Page  


 With all of the furor about the DEA online recently, I decided to compile a short but interesting group of Federal Circuit Court of Appeals & US Supreme Court decisions addressing the topic of how the DEA runs operations. The following material contains excerpts from various court opinions. The actual final legal disposition of most of these cases as well as the substantive and procedural legal attacks brought have been edited out. I would also like to point out that the law changes frequently and may be interpreted differently by different Federal Circuits and different judges, and the following material does not necessarily reflect the current law or the majority concensus. However, for what it’s worth, it is interesting to see how the DEA operates.

 “And you thought we had rights in this country!” 




(Cite as: 476 U.S. 321, 106 S.Ct. 1871, 90 L.Ed.2d 299) Thomas J. HENDERSON, Scott O. Thornton and Ruth Freedman, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES. No. 84-1744. Argued April 1, 1986. Decided May 19, 1986. **1873 POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. —. I A jury convicted petitioners of charges arising out of manufacture, possession, and distribution of controlled substances.S *323 [FN1] The evidence at trial showed that in February and April 1980 petitioner Henderson, under the alias “Richard Martin,” placed orders with a scientific supply company in Ohio for chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of illegal drugs. The orders attracted the attention of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Agents obtained a warrant from a United States Magistrate, authorizing installation of an electronic transmitter in one of the chemical containers. Henderson drove from California to Ohio, picked up the second order of chemicals on June 24, and headed west. Agents lost the tracking signal despite their following by both car and plane, only to receive it later in July from petitioner Freedman’s house near Watsonville, California. A search pursuant to warrant on July 17 revealed an illicit drug factory. The last of the codefendants, Peter Bell, was arraigned on September 3, 1980. FN1. The jury convicted all three petitioners of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and phenyl-2- propanone, see 21 U.S.C. s 846; petitioners Thornton and Freedman of manufacture and possession with intent to distribute of methamphetamine, see s 842(a)(1); and petitioner Henderson of traveling interstate with intent to promote the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, see 18 U.S.C. s 1952(a)(3). 


(Cite as: 27 F.3d 1035) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin Glenn NEAL, Ricky Clyde Duncan, Leslie Raymond Jones, Clifford P.Sutherland, James Glen Pace, Evelyn Austin Graham, Timothy Wade Green, Jacky Ronald Pace, Gilbert D. Smith, Jimmy Wayne Joyce, Defendants-Appellants. No. 90-1957. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. July 21, 1994. Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1994. Before GOLDBERG, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge: Defendants Jacky Ronald Pace, James Glen Pace, Melvin Glenn Neal, Ricky Clyde Duncan, Leslie Raymond Jones, Clifford P. Sutherland, Evelyn Austin Graham, Timothy Wade Green, Gilbert D. Smith, and Jimmy Wayne Joyce (“the Defendants”) were jointly tried and convicted of various offenses stemming from a conspiracy to manufacture, possess, and distribute amphetamine. All ten defendants were convicted of conspiring to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ss 841(a)(1) and 846 (1988). [FN1] All ten defendants now appeal their *1041 convictions. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand in part. FN1. Additionally, the jury found Jacky Pace guilty of one count of aiding and abetting the manufacture of amphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ss 841(a)(1) and (2); one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 848; multiple counts of investing income derived from a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 854; one count of aiding and abetting interstate travel in furtherance of a drug conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ss 1952 and 2; and one count of conspiring to impede the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 371. James Glen Pace was convicted of multiple counts of investing income derived from a drug conspiracy, one count of conspiring to impede the Internal Revenue Service, and one count of using a communication facility to facilitate the conspiracy to manufacture amphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 843(b). Neal was found guilty of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, multiple counts of investing income derived from a drug conspiracy, and conspiring to impede the Internal Revenue Service. The jury convicted Duncan of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, investing income derived from a drug conspiracy, aiding and abetting interstate travel in furtherance of a drug conspiracy, and conspiring to impede the Internal Revenue Service. Smith was found guilty of five counts of investing income derived from a drug conspiracy and one count of aiding and abetting interstate travel in furtherance of a drug conspiracy. I In 1984 and 1985, Jacky Pace operated an extensive conspiracy to distribute amphetamine. At varying points throughout the conspiracy’s existence, Pace recruited the other Defendants into his organization. Pace also established a network of phony corporations (“the JRP group”) to purchase the chemicals and equipment necessary to manufacture amphetamine and to launder the money he received from his amphetamine operations. Agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and the Texas Department of Public Safety (“TDPS”) apparently learned of Pace’s involvement in the amphetamine trade through surveillance of Metroplex Chemicals, a Dallas business that supplied chemicals and glassware to amphetamine manufacturers. In June 1987, the government brought a forty-three count indictment charging thirty-one persons with various offenses arising out of their participation in Pace’s amphetamine distribution ring. The case proceeded to trial in May 1989, but the district court declared a mistrial because of excessive publicity. In October 1989, the case again proceeded to trial, and the jury returned with its guilty verdicts in September 1990.


 Cite as: 16 F.3d 1223 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bud RIGGINS and Donald McVean, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 93-5075, 93-5076. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Before: GUY and SILER, Circuit Judges; and CHURCHILL, Senior District Judge. [FN*] PER CURIAM. **1 After a jury trial, defendants were convicted of conspiracy and attempt to manufacture a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 846, as well as possession of triple-neck round-bottom flasks with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 843(a)(6). Defendants filed a post-trial Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, which the district court granted. The government now challenges the court’s decision. Finding that a reasonable jury could have concluded that defendants’ conduct satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements of the charged offenses, we reverse and remand. I. In May 1991, Bud Riggins placed an order for ten kilograms of isosafrole and twenty liters of methanol with Eastman Fine Chemicals (“Eastman”) of Rochester, New York. For numerous reasons, Riggins’s isosafrole order aroused the suspicion of Richard Hapeman, Eastman’s manager of quality assurance. For instance, isosafrole was, at the time, a chemical found on the DEA’s ” ‘watch list,’ an informal list of chemicals often used illegally which is published to suppliers.” [FN1] In addition, the order was far larger than standard orders, which typically do not exceed one kilogram. Hapeman also noted that Riggins did not appear to be using a business address, and that the business Riggins had listed, Logan Ag Lab & Supply, had never before placed an order with Eastman. Furthermore, Riggins initially informed Hapeman that he wanted the chemicals shipped COD, a request that Hapeman could not honor given company policy. That Riggins would decide to initiate dealings with Eastman at that point seemed particularly strange to Hapeman, especially since, as Hapeman surmised, Riggins could have sought out other suppliers that were not only geographically closer to him, but also could offer a better price. Dubious as to Riggins’s intentions, Hapeman sought and obtained Riggins’s written assurance that the chemicals would not be used in any food or drug or in a residential setting. Hapeman also contacted the DEA, notifying the agency as to his suspicions. The case was then referred to the DEA office in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville DEA agents contacted the DEA laboratory in Chicago and were informed that isosafrole is a precursor to the manufacture of 3, 4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (“MDA”), a schedule I hallucinogen under 21 U.S.C. s 812. After getting confirmation from Eastman that Riggins had indeed placed the order in question, Louisville DEA Agent Gary Tennant decided to make a controlled delivery of the chemicals. Although a perusal of the local phone book did not reveal a phone number for either Riggins or the Logan Ag Lab & Supply Company, Tennant did manage to find a number to call by consulting various shipping documents. The individual who answered the call, “Don,” instructed that the delivery be made to an airplane hanger on Riggins’s farm in Logan County, Kentucky. After the isosafrole package had been equipped with a beeper transmitting device, a delivery for the full amount under Riggins’s order took place on June 10, 1991. A person identifying himself as Clarence Gamble [FN2] accepted the delivery. As the delivery was being made, Tennant noticed a “distinctive chemical smell,” which he associated with acetic anhydride, a substance used in the production of amphetamines. The DEA continued their surveillance of the area for nearly 40 hours. **2 On June 11, 1991, the DEA, accompanied by state and local police, executed a search of the hanger and the surrounding area. As the investigators arrived on the scene, Riggins remarked: “[Y]ou are here about them chemicals ain’t you.” (App. 234.) He then informed the agents that he had removed the isosafrole and methanol from the hanger to a residence on the property. At the time, the residence, though owned by Riggins, was occupied by Donald McVean, a friend and business associate of Riggins. During the search of the hanger, DEA Agent Arnold Fitzgerald, much as Tennant had done the day before, noticed the smell of acetic anhydride. [FN3] The search did, in fact, uncover acetic anhydride as well as hydrobromic acid and 11 marijuana plants. Perhaps as revealing as what the agents did find was what they did not find: “There was no evidence found indicating the existence of a legitimate chemical business. “There was no evidence of the presence of fire safety equipment or use of safety storage principles.” The agents also searched Riggins’s pick-up truck, which was parked outside the hanger. In the back seat, they found a book entitled “Drug Manufacturing for Fun and Profit.” While the book did not include a recipe for MDA, it did devote a chapter to the manufacture of dimethyltryptomine, or “DMT,” a controlled substance manufactured in much the same way as MDA. The most plentiful source of evidence turned out to be Riggins’s residence, located in a large clearing at a “considerable distance from any other building” on the farm. While the agents left the premises to secure a search warrant for the residence, McVean was permitted to remain inside unattended for approximately 30 to 40 minutes. When the agents returned, [FN4] and immediately upon entering the residence, Tennant and Fitzgerald detected “a very pungent and strong smell of ether.” [FN5] A thorough search ensued after the agents ventilated the residence. In the living room, the agents noted the following “scattered about” items: Isosafrole–(10) 1 kilogram bottles–full; (2) 500 milliliter bottles–full and 1/2 full Methanol–(1) 20 liter metal can–full Ethyl Alcohol–(2) 4 liter bottles–full and 1/2 full Sulfuric Acid–(1) 6 1/2 liter bottle–full and (1) 2 1/2 liter bottle– 1/2 full Hydrogen Peroxide 30%–(5) 500 milliliter bottles–full; (1) 4 liter glass bottle– 1/2 full Ethyl Ether (EM)–(10) 1 liter bottles–(9) full; (1) 1/2 full Ethyl Ether (Fischer)–(1) 4 liter bottle– 1/2 full Alumina Activated–(1) 2 1/2 liter bottle–full Toluene–(1) 4 liter bottle–full Formic Acid 88%–(4) 4 liter plastic bottles–3 1/4 full Formic Acid–(2) 2/5 liter plastic bottles–full Aluminum Metal–(2) 500 milligram plastic bottles–full Isopropyl 70%–(12) 1 pint bottles–full (Wal-Mart brand) Isatoic Anhydride–(1) 500 gram bottles–full Muriatic Acid–(1) 1 gallon plastic bottle–full **3 Chromium Trioxide–(1) 1 liter bottle–full Sodium Acetate–(1) 25 pound plastic bottle The agents also discovered (3) 3,000 milliliter single neck flasks; (1) 1,000 milliliter single neck flask; and (1) hot plate. In addition to a Lyman 500 scale, an Ohaus GT 8000 scale and (2) lab thermometers, a search of the kitchen yielded: Acetone [FN6] Phosphoric Acid–(1) 2 1/2 liter bottle– 3/4 full Raney-Nickel [FN7]–(5) 100 gram metal containers–full (stored in refrigerator) Chromium Trioxide–(1) 500 gram bottle– 1/2 full Inositol [FN8] Empty Gelatine Capsules [FN9]–(2) plastic zip lock bags containing approximately 420 In a first floor bedroom, the agents found a computer that was in the process of printing out documents. These documents, Riggins and McVean contend, were catalogs that they had intended to send to companies in the chemical supply industry. A search of another bedroom netted the agents a loaded .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. The revolver was found on a night stand beside a bed. McVean apparently had been using the room as his sleeping area. The agents also searched the attic. The items found there were particularly noteworthy because they had been concealed behind a sheet of plywood. Once McVean found out that the hiding place had been discovered, he said: “[O]h, shit.” [FN10] The attic is where the agents located Riggins’s and McVean’s most sizable cache: Hydrochloric Acid–(1) 2 1/2 liter bottle– 3/4 full Potassium Dichromate Merk–(1) 1 pound container–full Ethyl Alcohol–(1) 4 liter bottle– 1/10 full Acetic Acid, Glacial–(1) 2 1/2 liter bottle–full Ethyl Acetate–(1) 4 liter bottle– 3/4 full Formamide–(1) 1 quart bottle–full Diethyl Malonate–(1) 2 kilogram bottle– 1/2 full Phenylacetaldehyde–(2) 250 gram bottles– 3/4 full each 1-Bromoethyl Benzene–(1) 100 gram bottle– 1/2 full N-Butyl Chloride–(1) 4 liter bottle–full Nitric Acid–(2) 2 1/2 liter bottles–full Titrant Standard Potassium Hydroxide Alcoholic–(2) 500 ML bottle–full Isosafrole–(3) 250 gram bottles–full Isonitrosoproprophenone–(4) 1/2 quart bottles–full Magnesium metal–(6) 500 gram bottles–full Unknown liquid–(1) 4 liter bottle– 1/4 full Potassium Permanganate–(2) 500 gram bottles–full Pyridine–(1) 1 one liter bottle– 1/4 full Phenylacetyl–(4) 100 gram bottles– 3/4 full Toluidine–(1) 500 gram bottle–full Acetyl Acetone–(2) 500 milliliter bottles–full Carbon Tetrachloride–(1) 500 milliliter bottle–full Phenylacetonitrile–(1) 1 kilogram bottle–full Methyl Iodide–(1) 100 milliliter bottle–full Chromium Trioxide–(1) 500 gram bottle–full The attic also produced the following paraphernalia: [FN11] (3) 5,000 milliliter triple neck flasks, (3) 3,000 milliliter triple neck flasks, (4) 4,000 milliliter Pyrex beakers, (1) heating mantel (100 ml.), [FN12] separatory funnels, graduated cylinders, and condensers. **4 In March 1992, on the strength of the evidence obtained as a result of the searches detailed above, a federal grand jury returned a seven-count indictment naming Riggins and McVean as defendants. Specifically, the indictment listed several counts relating directly to the defendants’ alleged MDA operation, including: conspiracy [FN13] (Count 1) and attempt [FN14] (Count 2) to manufacture MDA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 846; and possession of triple-neck round-bottom flasks with intent to manufacture MDA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 843(a)(6) [FN15] (Count 5). The indictment also contained two firearm charges: the use and carrying of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 924(c) (Count 3); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, [FN16] in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g)(1) & (2) (Count 4). Finally, the indictment charged Riggins with two other drug-related offenses: manufacturing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 841 (Count 6); and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 841(a)(1) (Count 7). At trial, defendants attempted to portray their operation as a legitimate chemical supply and produce business, not an illicit drug manufacturing center. Testimony given during the trial established that the government tested samples of 10 out of the 41 substances found as a result of the search. The government’s chemist, Odest Washington, opined that Riggins’s farm provided an ideal setting for a clandestine laboratory because it was well hidden by trees. As to the chemicals found on the farm, Washington testified that eight of them could have been used to manufacture MDA: isosafrole, formamide, formic acid, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen peroxide, toluidine, acetone, and methanol. Although virtually all of the ingredients to make MDA were thus present, Washington noted that several pieces of laboratory equipment vital to the manufacturing process were not. For instance, the government’s search of Riggins’s farm did not turn up a rheostat, a device for regulating temperature. In addition, the agents could not locate ring stands, clamps, or other apparatus designed to hold the equipment during synthesis. Finally, Washington observed that the heating mantle found in the attic of Riggins’s residence would not have fit the 3,000 or 5,000 millimeter flasks that were also found in the attic. At the close of the government’s case and again, at the close of all the proof, defendants moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant Fed.R.Crim.P. 29. On both occasions, the district court denied defendants’ motions. Subsequently, the jury returned a not guilty verdict against Riggins on Counts 4, 6, and 7. The jury did, however, convict both defendants on Counts 1, 2, and 5, and McVean on Count 4. [FN17] 


(Cite as 8 F.3d 316) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karl HOFSTATTER (92-1836) and Michael Griffor (92-1805), Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 92-1805/1836. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued June 17, 1993. Decided Sept. 28, 1993 [FN1]. I In May of 1989 the Drug Enforcement Administration received information from a chemical company in Connecticut that a suspicious order had been received from “JAH Company,” of Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the chemical phenylpropanolamine. The DEA subsequently monitored numerous purchases of precursor chemicals by defendants Hofstatter and Griffor, ostensibly acting on behalf of JAH or “Robert Kaye and Company.” On one occasion defendant Griffor was found to have used the name “Michael Edwards” in picking up a shipment of ephedrine. On June 20, 1991, agents of the DEA executed a warrant to search the premises at 712 and 715 East Kingsley, in Ann Arbor, *320 where the defendants had gone after one of their pickups of chemicals. At 712 East Kingsley the agents found laboratory equipment and supplies, including vacuum flasks and a turkey baster, along with written records of experiments involving the manufacture of methylcathinone, an analogue of the controlled substance methamphetamine. In a box with chemicals and equipment was a notebook detailing the experiments. One entry in the notebook read as follows: “let some sit for 3 days (less smell) closer to amphed.” Another read “took first sample at 8:00 pm–quality: (all est. from – 1–+ 10) euphoria (7), speed (6), conversation (8), smell (2) [FN*] taste (1), jones (4) (one being no jones).” Taped to the inside covers of the notebook were photographs of Mr. Griffor and his dogs. Also seized were personal papers of Mr. Hofstatter and address books containing names of chemical supply companies and various chemical formulae. In a kitchen freezer agents found more than a kilogram of phenylpropanolamine solution. Elsewhere in the house they found chemicals needed for the manufacture of methylcathinone, cathinone, 4-methylaminorex, and n-methyl-4-methylaminorex. There was no toluene (a solvent widely used in making such substances), but, as noted above, there was evidence that toluene had been used. FN* A note connected to the rating for “smell” read as follows: “smells as if we did not get all of toluene out but K insists that we did. I am going to reclean some and find out.” Mr. Griffor’s automobile, which had been used the day before to pick up ephedrine, was parked in the driveway of 715 East Kingsley. The automobile was also searched. Inside the car were found two bags containing personal papers, notebooks, and envelopes in the name of Mr. Hofstatter. The documents described “khat” (an East African plant containing cathinone) and methylaminorex (a drug also known as “rex” or “U4euh,” a homophone of euphoria). Formulae for the manufacture of methylcathinone were found in the car, as was a Federal Register notice indicating that methylaminorex was to be scheduled as a controlled substance by the DEA. The defendants were indicted on charges of conspiracy to possess listed chemicals with intent to manufacture controlled substances and controlled substance analogues (count one); possession of listed chemicals with intent to manufacture controlled substance analogues and controlled substances (counts two as to Griffor, three as to Hofstatter, and four, five, and six); conspiracy to open or maintain a place for the purpose of manufacturing controlled substance analogues and controlled substances (count seven), and endangering human life while attempting to manufacture a controlled substance illegally (count eight as to Hofstatter). DEA chemist Terry Dal Cason determined that the seized documents contained 23 iterations of the formula for manufacturing methylcathinone. Cason testified at trial that the defendants had the chemicals and the know-how necessary to manufacture methylcathinone, cathinone, 4-methylaminorex, and n-methyl-4-methylaminorex. Cason also testified that methylcathinone has a chemical structure substantially similar to that of the controlled substance methamphetamine; that cathinone has a chemical structure substantially similar to that of amphetamine, which is likewise a controlled substance; that 4- methylaminorex is a controlled substance; and that -methyl-4-methylaminorex has a chemical structure substantially similar to that of 4-methylaminorex. DEA Agent Mary Sandy testified that while posing as a chemical supply store employee she had twice sold listed precursor chemicals to Mr. Hofstatter. She went on to tell the jury that after the ephedrine purchase on June 19, 1991, agents followed Messrs. Hofstatter and Griffor to 715 Kingsley in Ann Arbor, where Mr. Hofstatter removed items from Mr. Griffor’s car while it was parked in the driveway. Through the car window Agent Sandy was able to see a computer and other items. The government also introduced evidence that in May of 1987 local authorities had discovered chemicals, laboratory equipment, formulae, and small quantities of 4-methylaminorex in a trailer rented by Mr. Hofstatter in Pasco County, Florida. It would be fair to infer from this evidence that the trailer had been used as a site for illicit manufacture of a controlled substance. The jury found Mr. Hofstatter guilty on all counts in which he was charged except counts seven and eight. Mr. Griffor was convicted on all of the counts in which he was charged except counts two and seven. Mr. Hofstatter was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for 96 months. The sentence reflected a two-level enhancement in Mr. Hofstatter’s guideline offense level because of his having played a leadership role. Mr. Griffor was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 36 months. Both defendants perfected timely appeals. 


(Cite as: 955 F.2d 630) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Richard ALLEN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-50666. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 8, 1992 [FN*]. Before FARRIS, NOONAN and TROTT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Wayne Richard Allen appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment against him on the ground of outrageous government misconduct. We affirm. In 1985, one Charles Hill organized Triple Neck Scientific, a chemical supply house patronized by Allen and the source of information that Allen was involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine. At about the same time, Hill contacted the *631 local Drug Enforcement Agency office and agreed to supply them with information regarding customers purchasing chemicals and equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine. This arrangement enabled the DEA to initiate an operation spanning some four years to identify methamphetamine manufacturers in southern California. During that time, the DEA undertook a variety of actions, including (1) the purchase of advertising to assist Hill in generating business, (2) camera surveillance of Triple Neck premises and (3) the use of a law enforcement officer as an undercover employee of Triple Neck. The DEA was aware that substantial amounts of precursor chemicals were being sold during the operation, and it permitted Hill to retain all funds he received through Triple Neck. [1] Allen contends that government involvement in the oversight and manning of Triple Neck Scientific amounted to outrageous misconduct. We will dismiss an indictment if government misconduct has been so outrageous that it results in a violation of due process. United States v. Luttrell, 889 F.2d 806, 811 (9th Cir.1989), modified, 923 F.2d 764 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc). We have pointed out that the channel for relief opened by this defense is a most narrow one. United States v. Simpson, 813 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 898, 108 S.Ct. 233, 98 L.Ed.2d 192 (1987). In reviewing Allen’s motion to dismiss, we must determine initially whether the government’s conduct was ” ‘so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.’ ” Id. at 1464 (quoting United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535, 539 (9th Cir.1983)). It was not. Unsavory conduct alone will not cause the dismissal of an indictment. United States v. Smith, 924 F.2d 889, 897 (9th Cir.1991); Simpson, 813 F.2d at 1464. [2] The government’s consent to and participation in the operation of a facility for the supply of chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine does not offend the universal sense of justice. We must view the question “in light of the limited range of law enforcement techniques available for investigating drug manufacturing enterprises.” United States v. Smith, 538 F.2d 1359, 1361 (9th Cir.1976); see also United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 432, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1643, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973) (considering “practicable means of detection” of illicit drug manufacture and concluding that infiltration and supply of drug manufacturing rings are “recognized and permissible means of investigation” that do not offend a universal sense of justice). Manufacturers of methamphetamine might resort to hundreds of supply houses in the area to obtain the required materials. Closing any one of them would have little effect on a manufacturer’s access to others like them.