FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 04 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30262
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:13-cr-00140-TOR-1
v.
SINYO SILKEUTSABAY; LA LY MEMORANDUM*
YANG; BOUALONG SILKEUTSABAY;
KHAMLAY SILKEUTSABAY,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 26, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Sinyo Silkeutsabay, La Ly Yang, and Boualong Silkeutsabay
pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture 100 or more marijuana plants in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and Appellant Khamlay Silkeutsabay pled guilty to misprision
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. All four pled as a defense § 538 of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which forbids
the Department of Justice from using congressionally allocated funds to inhibit the
implementation of state medical marijuana laws. Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 538, 128
Stat. 2130, 2217 (hereinafter § 538). The district court found that because
Appellants violated Washington state medical marijuana law, they were not
entitled to § 538’s protection, and thus their convictions could stand. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Appellants made various claims about the burden of proof and the
availability of common law defenses in this case. Appellants concede that our
decision in United States v. Evans, 929 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2019), disposes of each
of those issues.
2. Appellants’ sole remaining claim is that § 538 shields them from this
prosecution. To reap § 538’s protection, Appellants must establish that they
strictly complied with Washington law in operating their medical marijuana
dispensaries and farm. United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1178 (9th Cir.
2016). They did not do so. Washington’s 2011 Medical Use of Cannabis Act
states a medical marijuana provider may not supply marijuana to more than one
patient within a given fifteen-day window. See Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040
2
(2012); see also id. § 69.51A.100 (2012). Appellants admit to having served
between ten and thirty patients a day in their dispensaries. This practice exceeds
the statutory limit, in clear violation of Washington law. Because Appellants failed
to strictly follow Washington law, § 538 does not protect them from federal
prosecution. See McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1178.
AFFIRMED.
3