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. Pae

Citation: 192 F. App'x 618Docket: No. 05-10428

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 26, 2006; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Soon C. Pae appeals her sentence following a guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine hydrochloride under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirms the district court's decision. Pae argues that she should have received a minimal participant adjustment, but the court finds sufficient evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that she was not entitled to this adjustment, referencing United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, the court does not address Pae's argument regarding the applicable version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The ruling is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291

Application: The appellate court exercised jurisdiction to review the district court's sentencing decision.

Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirms the district court's decision.

Minimal Participant Adjustment under Sentencing Guidelines

Application: The court found sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision that the defendant did not qualify for a minimal participant adjustment.

Reasoning: Pae argues that she should have received a minimal participant adjustment, but the court finds sufficient evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that she was not entitled to this adjustment.

Precedential Authority of Unpublished Decisions

Application: The court's ruling is not considered precedential and cannot be cited in future cases within the circuit.

Reasoning: The ruling is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.