(9th Cir.1989). Furthermore, we held in Hemandez-Escarsega that it is proper to rely on Title 21 conspiracies to establish CCE violations. Therefore, the conspiracy plus the two marijuana counts' comprise the three substantive counts, and the district court’s jury instruction on the “continuing series” requirement of 21 U.S.C. § 848(c)(2) was not erroneous. 8. Judge’s Absence. Long claims that the district court’s law clerk announced the jury’s impasse when neither Long nor the trial judge were present, which improperly convened court and created a structural defect requiring all of the forfeiture verdicts to be vacated. Long points us to Sanders v. Union Pac. R.R., 193 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir.1999) (Tashima, J., concurring). See also Riley v. Deeds, 56 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The record before us does not show that the
holding that it was constitutional error requiring reversal when among other things the law clerk convened court by directing court reporter to read back testimony to jury in absence of judge holding statute allowing court to excuse jurors from jury duty and defining court as a judge was violated when clerk excused jurors without obtaining court approval of the excuses granted holding it error to admit testimony where among other things there was no evidence that defendants appearance had changed since the time of the robbery holding that when none of the required explanations were given that was fundamental error requiring reversal holding that in order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under  1983 a plaintiff must establish among other things the absence of probable cause for the initiation of the proceedings against her