FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 21 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50446
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01260-SJO-1
vs.
MEMORANDUM *
NAZAR AL BUSSAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 4, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and HADDON, District
Judge.**
Nazar Al Bussam appeals from the district court’s order excluding proffered
expert testimony and from his 84-month sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Sam E. Haddon, United States District Judge for the
District of Montana, sitting by designation.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Al Bussam’s
proffered expert testimony that physicians may, with a legitimate medical purpose,
prescribe or distribute Schedule II controlled substances for maintenance or
detoxification treatment. Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services the authority to determine the scope of professional practice for
the medical treatment of narcotic addiction. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S.
243, 271–72 (2006). The Secretary has not authorized the prescription or
distribution of Schedule II controlled substances for use in maintenance or
detoxification treatment of narcotic dependent persons. See 21 C.F.R. §
1306.07(d). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Al
Bussam’s proffered expert testimony.
Al Bussam’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court
gave due consideration to the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although Al Bussam’s 84-month sentence represented a six-
month upward departure from the Guidelines range of 63–78 months, upon
reviewing the record, we are not left with “a definite and firm conviction that the
district court committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Ressam, 679
F.3d 1069, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (noting that “review of the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence is deferential and will provide relief only
2
in rare cases”).
AFFIRMED.
3