Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

U.S. v. FIGUEROA, 255 Fed.Appx. 285 (9th Cir. 2007)

United States, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Mario CachoFIGUEROA, Defendant — Appellant., 255 F. App'x 285 (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 286 2007)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2007-11-26
Topic
general

U.S. v. FIGUEROA, 255 Fed.Appx. 285 (9th Cir. 2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Mario CachoFIGUEROA, Defendant — Appellant. No. 06-30151.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted November 13, 2007.[fn*] Filed November 26, 2007. [fn*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2). [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Helen J.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. FIGUEROA, 255 Fed.Appx. 285 (9th Cir. 2007). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. v. FIGUEROA,255 Fed.Appx. 285(9th Cir. 2007)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Mario Cacho
FIGUEROA, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 06-30151.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Page 286
Submitted November 13, 2007.fn*
Filed November 26, 2007.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Donald M. Currie, Esq., Robert Henry Westinghouse, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mario Cacho Figueroa, McRae, GA, Walter G. Palmer, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-02-00038-01-TSZ.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUMfn**
Mario Cacho Figueroa appeals from the district court's order upon limited remand pursuant toUnited States v.Ameline,409 F.3d 1073(9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Figueroa contends that the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. However, the district court determined on remand that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, and this determination is unreviewable on appeal.See United States v. Combs,470 F.3d 1294,1296-97(9th Cir. 2006).AFFIRMED.
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.SeeFed.R.App.P.34(a)(2). ↩
  2. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
  3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ↩