U.S. v. Garcia et al, No. 05-30356 (11-19-07). A promise made is the sentence to be paid. A specific stipulated sentence generally is a jurisdictional bar. Defendants here were sentenced pursuant to a stipulated sentencing range under Rule 11(c)(1)(C). The actual sentence was within the range, but towards the high end. The 9th Cir. found the sentence bars an appeal, and divests the court of jurisdiction to challenges to the guidelines and reasonableness. The stipulation settles it. (Although unconstitutional reasons should still allow such an appeal). As for supervised release issues for a codefendant, a financial disclosure condition is appropriate for a drug trafficking offense, especially if there is a leadership role, or a financial laundering aspect. The drug testing number must have a minimum (here one) and a maximum, construed here as three. The court, not the p.o., must set the number.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Case Summaries and Commentary by Federal Defenders of the Ninth Circuit
Contributors
Click here for Supreme Court & Other Circuit Blogs
Click here for Steve Sady's Blog Summary
Previous Posts
- Case o' The Week: Ninth Bows to State Secrets Priv...
- Case o' The Week: Ninth Can't Cope with Forced Med...
- U.S. v. Gamboa-Cardenas, No. 05-50151 (11-8-07). ...
- U.S. v. Gooch, No. 06-30645 (11-1-07). The 9th ho...
- Case o' The Week: Ninth Restrains Ratched, Importa...
- US v. Hernandez-Vasquez, No. 06-50198 (10-31-07). ...
- Case o' The Week: Winning the battle, losing the w...
- US v. Rodriguez_Guzman, No. 06-10585 (10-22-07). ...
- US v. Soltero, No. )6-50257 (10-19-07). This appe...
- Case o' The Week: Close Enough for Government Work...
Free Publications
D-Web Law BlogsDefense Newsletter
U.S. Supreme Court Case Summaries
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home