Narrative Opinion Summary
Lawrence Jou appeals a 33-month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement under 18 U.S.C. 371, 17 U.S.C. 506(a), and 18 U.S.C. 2319(a) and (b)(1). The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Jou argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court ordered restitution; however, this argument is precluded by precedent established in United States v. Bussell, which holds that restitution orders are not affected by the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Booker. The court remands the case to the sentencing court for further proceedings in accordance with United States v. Ameline. The disposition is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's authority to review the case is based on the jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C. 1291.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not intended for publication and has specific restrictions on citation within the circuit.
Reasoning: The disposition is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Remand for Further Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case is sent back to the sentencing court for additional proceedings in line with the guidance from a previous case.
Reasoning: The court remands the case to the sentencing court for further proceedings in accordance with United States v. Ameline.
Restitution Orders and Sixth Amendment Rightssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's argument regarding the violation of Sixth Amendment rights due to the district court's restitution order is dismissed based on existing precedent.
Reasoning: Jou argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court ordered restitution; however, this argument is precluded by precedent established in United States v. Bussell, which holds that restitution orders are not affected by the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Booker.