Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by Isidro Cazares-Cazares against the district court's decision to impose consecutive sentences for his violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and the conditions of his supervised release. The appellant argued that these sentences violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reviewed the claim for plain error due to the absence of an objection at sentencing. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the consecutive sentences were permissible as they addressed separate offenses. The revocation of supervised release was determined to be a penalty for the original crime, distinct from the new violation. The court further noted that the terms of the plea agreement did not suggest that the sentence for the § 1326 violation should also address the supervised release violation. The decision was affirmed, with the ruling categorized as non-precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, limiting its citation in future cases.
Legal Issues Addressed
Double Jeopardy Clause and Consecutive Sentencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the imposition of consecutive sentences for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and conditions of supervised release does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause as these are separate offenses.
Reasoning: The consecutive sentences do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause as they punish separate offenses; the revocation of supervised release is a punishment for the original crime, not for the conduct that led to the revocation.
Plea Agreement and Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the plea agreement did not preclude the imposition of consecutive sentences, as it was based on the defendant being on supervised release at the time of the violation.
Reasoning: The plea agreement's conditions did not alter this analysis, as it was based on Cazares-Cazares being on supervised release at the time of the violation, not on the violation itself.
Revocation of Supervised Releasesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Revocation of supervised release is considered a penalty for the original crime, distinct from any new violation that may occur while on supervised release.
Reasoning: The revocation of supervised release is a punishment for the original crime, not for the conduct that led to the revocation.