Legal Opinion
United States v. Bert Douglas Montgomery
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 29, 2006No. 05-10587PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge.
On limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), the district court did not “obtain the views of counsel” before it decided not to re-sentence Appellant Bert Montgomery. Montgomery argues that the district court, in not obtaining the views of counsel, did not comply with the instructions laid down in Ameline. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that our decision in Ameline requires the district court to obtain the views of counsel before it decides whether Ame-line re-sentencing is warranted.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. Alfred Arnold AmelineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Jerome CrosbyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Sylvester Norman Knows His Gun, IIICourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Delgrosso v. Spang & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Orval W. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- United States v. Robert F. CombsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Armstrong v. KemnaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. RandolphCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Paul SilvaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Correia v. McDonaldUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2016
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.