Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the appeals of two individuals, following their guilty pleas for conspiracy to pass counterfeit currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 871, 472, and 474. The appellants contested the district court's application of an upward adjustment for producing counterfeit Federal Reserve notes, arguing a violation of their constitutional rights under Blakely v. Washington, due to the lack of a jury determination. Additionally, one appellant argued for a downward departure for aberrant behavior, which was denied. The central legal issue pertains to the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, which rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. The appellants sought remand for resentencing, contending their sentences were imposed prior to Booker. The appellate court found this argument persuasive, noting uncertainty in the record regarding how the district court might have sentenced under the advisory framework. Thus, the case was remanded for reconsideration of the sentences in light of Booker, following the procedural guidance from United States v. Ameline, with an acknowledgment of limited citation authority per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Sentencing Guidelines Post-Bookersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluates whether the district court's sentencing decision would have been different had it recognized the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, as established in United States v. Booker.
Reasoning: The appellants seek remand for resentencing, asserting that their sentences were imposed before the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Booker, which established the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines.
Constitutional Rights under Blakely v. Washingtonsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants argue that their constitutional rights were violated by the application of an upward adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines without a jury determination.
Reasoning: They argue that the district court violated their constitutional rights under Blakely v. Washington by applying an upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2) for producing counterfeit Federal Reserve notes.
Criteria for Downward Departure for Aberrant Behaviorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Moscrop contends that the district court should have granted a downward departure for aberrant behavior, which was not applied in his sentencing.
Reasoning: Moscrop additionally claims the court erred in not granting a downward departure for aberrant behavior under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.20.
Remand for Resentencing under United States v. Amelinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case is remanded for the district court to determine whether the sentences would have differed under the advisory guideline framework.
Reasoning: Consequently, the case is remanded for the district court to determine whether the sentences would have differed materially under this understanding, and for further proceedings as outlined in United States v. Ameline.