Legal Opinion

United States v. Albert Tito Perez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 31, 2007No. 06-30161PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BEA, Circuit Judge:

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we adopted a limited remand procedure for certain cases in which the defendant had failed to object to the use of mandatory sentencing guidelines. Specifically, in cases where the record of trial is insufficient for us to determine whether the district court would have imposed a different sentence had it known the sentencing guidelines were advisory, we now require a so-called “limited Ameline remand.” See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Under such a remand,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. United States v. CottonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. United States v. Alfred Arnold AmelineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  4. In Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
  5. United States v. Daniel F. KellingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Flores Ex Rel. Flores v. ArizonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  2. Augustine Bustos v. Steven MolaskyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  3. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. FriedmanDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2012
  4. Olakunle Oshodi v. Eric H. Holder Jr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  5. Hasmik Chinaryan v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API