Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Maldonado-Gomez
Citation: 201 F. App'x 471Docket: No. 05-10384
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 14, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Oscar Maldonado-Gomez appeals his 51-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, arguing that the district court incorrectly determined his statutory sentencing range to be five to forty years based on a finding of 212 kilograms of marijuana, which was not charged in the indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby violating Apprendi v. New Jersey and his Sixth Amendment rights. The court finds that Maldonado-Gomez waived his right to a jury determination by admitting the specific quantity of marijuana in his guilty plea and acknowledging the sentencing range. Consequently, there was no Apprendi violation. Furthermore, since his sentence did not exceed five years, any potential error was considered harmless. The court reiterates that a defendant cannot seek relief under Apprendi when their sentence is within the statutory maximum based on the jury's verdict, even if the drug quantity was determined by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also concludes that Maldonado-Gomez's substantial rights were not affected regarding the need for the government to prove the quantity beyond a reasonable doubt, as his sentence was below the five-year maximum. Finally, the admission of a specific amount during the plea colloquy negated any Sixth Amendment violation. The court affirms the sentence and notes that this disposition is not to be published or cited in future cases.