You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Cruz-Ponce

Citation: 145 F. App'x 611Docket: No. 05-30027; D.C. No. CR-03-00246-FVS

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 18, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Juan Ricardo Cruz-Ponce appeals a 77-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Since the appellant was sentenced under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). The remand procedure from Ameline is extended to cases involving non-constitutional errors as established in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The disposition is not for publication and may not be cited in this circuit except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines

Application: The appellant was sentenced under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, necessitating a remand for further proceedings.

Reasoning: Since the appellant was sentenced under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)

Application: The court asserts its jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a sentence for illegal reentry after deportation.

Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

Non-Citable Disposition

Application: The court's decision is not intended for publication and is restricted from being cited in this circuit, except as allowed by specific rules.

Reasoning: The disposition is not for publication and may not be cited in this circuit except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Remand Procedure for Non-Constitutional Errors

Application: The remand procedure established in Ameline is applicable to cases involving non-constitutional errors as outlined in Booker.

Reasoning: The remand procedure from Ameline is extended to cases involving non-constitutional errors as established in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).