Narrative Opinion Summary
The United States Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision to grant Oscar Peralta-Romero's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, reducing his sentence from sixty months to forty-six months. Peralta-Romero had been convicted of a marijuana-related offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and § 846. The court ruled that his sentence originally imposed under § 841(b)(1)(B) was erroneous because it exceeded the appropriate range for crimes involving an unspecified amount of marijuana, thus constituting an Apprendi error. The court referenced the precedent set in United States v. Velasco-Heredia to support this finding. Additionally, the court found no procedural default in Peralta-Romero's claim as he did not raise the Apprendi issue on direct review, citing English v. United States. The appellate court confirmed the district court's authority under § 2255 to conduct a resentencing, addressing the government's challenge to this authority. However, the decision is not to be cited in future cases following Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's order to reduce the sentence of Peralta-Romero, aligning it with the statutory guidelines.
Legal Issues Addressed
Authority to Resentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the district court's inherent authority to grant a new sentencing hearing under § 2255, correcting a sentence imposed in violation of constitutional law.
Reasoning: The court further addressed the government's assertion that the district court lacked the inherent power to grant a new sentencing hearing, stating that under § 2255, a prisoner may seek to correct a sentence imposed in violation of constitutional or statutory law.
Non-Publication of Ninth Circuit Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not to be published or cited in future cases, as specified by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The ruling is not to be published or cited in future cases, as per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Procedural Default in Section 2255 Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Peralta-Romero did not procedurally default his claim regarding Apprendi v. New Jersey because it was not raised on direct review, as supported by English v. United States.
Reasoning: The government argued that Peralta-Romero procedurally defaulted his claim regarding Apprendi v. New Jersey by not raising it on direct review; however, the court found that the claim was not procedurally defaulted, referencing English v. United States.
Sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and Apprendi Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court identified an Apprendi error in sentencing Peralta-Romero to a term of five to forty years, as the offense involved an unspecified amount of marijuana, necessitating a sentencing range of zero to five years as per § 841(b)(1)(D).
Reasoning: The court clarified that for a defendant convicted of a crime involving an unspecified amount of marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and § 846, the appropriate sentencing range is zero to five years, as per § 841(b)(1)(D). The imposition of a sentence of five to forty years under § 841(b)(1)(B) constituted an Apprendi error, supported by precedent from United States v. Velasco-Heredia.