Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the appeal of a re-sentencing decision of an individual previously convicted of illegal re-entry. The original sentence was reversed due to a sentencing error, and upon remand, the district court re-sentenced the defendant in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker. The appellant challenged the re-sentencing on grounds that the district court failed to correctly apply Booker and 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and that the increase in his sentence based on prior convictions violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed the re-sentencing, finding that the district court properly treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory and adequately considered the sentencing factors under § 3553(a). Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the appeal was moot, as the appellant was still under supervised release. The court also upheld the legality of fact-finding on prior convictions without a jury, referencing Almendarez-Torres, thus rejecting the Sixth Amendment challenge. The appellate decision is unpublished and non-citable under Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of United States v. Booker to Re-Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court correctly applied the principles set forth in Booker during the re-sentencing of the defendant, treating the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the re-sentencing decision, rejecting the government's argument to dismiss the appeal based on a limited remand, noting the remand was not explicitly limited and that the district court complied with the remand by applying Booker.
Consideration of Sentencing Factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court adequately considered the relevant sentencing factors under § 3553(a), satisfying the legal requirements for sentencing.
Reasoning: Regarding the consideration of sentencing factors under § 3553(a), the district court covered most factors sufficiently, which met the legal standard.
Mootness of Appeal Due to Supervised Releasesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was not considered moot as the defendant was still serving a term of supervised release, thus maintaining a live controversy.
Reasoning: The court also found the appeal was not moot, as Ambriz was still serving a term of supervised release.
Sixth Amendment Rights and Prior Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that increasing a sentence based on prior convictions without jury proof does not violate the Sixth Amendment, in line with the precedent established in Almendarez-Torres.
Reasoning: Ambriz's final argument claimed that the district court's fact-finding on prior convictions violated his Sixth Amendment rights, referencing the case Almendarez-Torres. The court denied this challenge, asserting it is bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court.