Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jose Ruiz-Vidal v. Loretta E. Lynch

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 17, 2015No. 11-73433Published

1Dissent

REINHARDT, Circuit, Judge,

dissenting:

■Petitioner was charged with sale of a controlled substance — a substance that the state alleged in the information was methamphetamine. He pled no contest to a lesser included offense — possession of a controlled substance. Petitioner stipulated that there was a factual basis for his plea, but explained nothing further regarding the offense. The question in this case is not whether Petitioner actually possessed methamphetamine, as opposed to a drug that is not punishable under federal law. If that were the question, this case would be straightforward, as…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Daniel Magana-Pizano v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  2. Jose Reyes Ruiz-Vidal v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  3. Jose Medina-Lara v. Eric Holder, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  4. Sergio Martinez-Perez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  5. United States v. Jorge Valdavinos-TorresCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012

16 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