UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ No. 20-1104 > │ v. │ │ DANIEL DARIO TREVINO, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:18-cr-00166-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.

Argued: January 28, 2021

Decided and Filed: July 30, 2021

Before: COOK, GRIFFIN, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Stuart G. Friedman, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellant. Joel S. Fauson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Stuart G. Friedman, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellant. Joel S. Fauson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Daniel Trevino was the sole owner of a chain of marijuana dispensaries throughout Michigan. A federal jury convicted him of conspiracy and nine substantive marijuana offenses. He challenges those convictions and his sentence. No. 20-1104 United States v. Trevino Page 2

But first, Trevino argues that he never should have been charged. He invokes a congressional appropriations rider, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, or “Section 538,” that bars the Department of Justice from spending funds to “prevent” states from “implementing their own State laws” permitting medical marijuana. See Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 538, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (2014). The parties dispute the rider’s effect; but even if we construe Section 538 as broadly as Trevino asks us to, he is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

Next, to counter the conspiracy charge, Trevino invokes a published opinion from nearly a century ago, Landen v. United States, 299 F. 75 (6th Cir. 1924). Landen created a limited exception to the general rule that ignorance or mistake of law is no excuse. We have applied that exception exactly once—in Landen itself; yet, we have never overruled it. Whatever life remains in the decision, it cannot help Trevino here because his conduct falls far outside of Landen’s narrow scope.

Finally, Trevino challenges the denial of his counsel’s motion to withdraw—filed less than two weeks before trial—the government’s use of summary charts at trial, and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. These challenges, too, are unavailing.

Finding all of Trevino’s claims without merit, we AFFIRM.

I.

Daniel Trevino was the founder and sole owner of Hydro World, LLC (Hydroworld), a Michigan entity. Originally, Hydroworld sold fertilizer and indoor growing equipment, such as lights and hydroponics systems. But after the state passed the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), Trevino turned Hydroworld