Amicus curiae letter brief filed in U.S. v. Ameline

I wrote a letter brief (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/mediasources/20050131a) as amicus curiae in U.S. v. Ameline, the Ninth Circuit case that applied Blakely to the guidelines and Blakelyized the guidelines (the only Circuit to do the latter!). I was limited to 2 1/2 pages, so the arguments are sparse indeed, but they are: (1) plain error standard is met in virtually every case in the Ninth Circuit (relying heavily on U.S. v. Hughes); (2) guidance should be given district courts regarding resentencing that: (a) the parsimony principle requires district courts to give considersation to all the factors in 3553(a), some of which are largely or totally irrelevant under a mandatory guidelines system (relying on U.S. v. Ranum); (b) district courts must use the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof for any fact essential to an increase in punishment; and (c) the Due Process Clause prohibits, in two different ways, the district court from imposing a sentence any greater than that authorized by the facts as found by the jury or formally admitted by the defendant -- first, the ex post facto component of due process, and second, the presumption against vindictive sentences.