## Facts

- A federal indictment in the Northern District of California charged Roy M. Ramirez, George Ballan, and others with a single conspiracy count to import, receive, conceal, and transport marijuana in violation of former 21 U.S.C. § 176a.
- The charged conspiracy occurred from approximately March to November 1970.
- Section 176a was repealed effective May 1, 1971, by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which provided generally less severe penalties.
- The indictment was returned after repeal (September 16, 1971); a jury convicted defendants (June 19, 1972), and the district court sentenced them under § 176a’s penalty provisions (June 20, 1972).
- Ramirez received seven years’ imprisonment and a $15,000 fine; Ballan received five years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
- Separately, officers searched co-defendant Bowers’s purse upon arrest for weapons and later, during booking, seized documents that were introduced at trial against Ballan.

## Issues

1. Whether the government may initiate a prosecution after a criminal statute’s repeal for conduct occurring before repeal.
2. Whether, if prosecution is permitted, defendants must be sentenced under the newer, more lenient penalty provisions rather than the repealed statute’s penalties.
3. Whether sentencing Ramirez under the repealed statute’s penalties constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
4. Whether Ballan could suppress documents seized from a co-defendant’s purse, including whether he had standing to challenge the search and seizure.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held prosecution could proceed under former § 176a for pre-repeal conduct despite a post-repeal indictment, based on the general saving statute (1 U.S.C. § 109) and the Act’s saving provisions.
- The court held the repealed statute’s penalty provisions applied to pre-repeal offenses; saving provisions preserved sentencing as part of the prosecution.
- The court rejected Ramirez’s Eighth Amendment claim because the sentence fell within § 176a’s authorized range and was not unconstitutional merely because Congress later adopted lower penalties.
- The court rejected Ballan’s suppression argument because he lacked a privacy interest in Bowers’s purse and therefore could not challenge the search and seizure.

## Legal Principles

- Under 1 U.S.C. § 109, repeal of a criminal statute does not extinguish liability or penalties incurred for pre-repeal conduct absent an express contrary directive.
- Special saving provisions in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act permit continued prosecution for pre-effective-date violations and preserve the prior law’s penalty scheme.
- For saving-statute purposes, “prosecution” includes sentencing; courts may impose the penalties attached to the offense when committed even if sentencing occurs after repeal.
- A sentence within statutory limits is not rendered cruel and unusual solely because subsequent legislation provides lower penalties for similar conduct.
- A defendant may not seek suppression of evidence seized from another person’s property without a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or item searched.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that saving statutes authorized post-repeal prosecution and sentencing under former 21 U.S.C. § 176a for a marijuana conspiracy completed before repeal, rejected an Eighth Amendment challenge to a within-range sentence, and denied a co-defendant’s suppression claim for lack of standing to contest a search of another person’s purse.


United States v. Ramirez, 480 F.2d 76 (9th Cir. 1973)