United States v. Felix Claude Martin

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Felix Claude Martin

15 F.3d 1093, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6725, 1994 WL 20008

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 1994

Docket93-10396

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F.3d 1093 (United States v. Felix Claude Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Felix Claude Martin, 15 F.3d 1093, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6725, 1994 WL 20008 (9th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

15 F.3d 1093
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Felix Claude MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-10396.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 18, 1994.*
Decided Jan. 25, 1994.

Before: REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Felix Claude Martin appeals the restitution component of his sentence imposed following a guilty plea to carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2119, and use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.

Martin argues the district court erred by ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,167.76 immediately upon sentencing because he lacked any financial resources. We disagree.

Here, the district court based the restitution order on the amount of income which Martin will earn during his 10-year term of imprisonment. In light of the 10-year sentence and the modest restitution order, we hold that the court's order was lawful. See United States v. Jackson, 982 F.2d 1279, 1284-85 (9th Cir.1992) ("[I]f, at the end of ... [a sentence], the defendant demonstrates that he has made a good-faith effort at payment, but is unable to pay the full amount, he may petition the court for an extension of time for a remittitur.").

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

15 F.3d 1093
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Felix Claude MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-10396.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 18, 1994.*
Decided Jan. 25, 1994.

Before: REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Felix Claude Martin appeals the restitution component of his sentence imposed following a guilty plea to carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2119, and use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.

Martin argues the district court erred by ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,167.76 immediately upon sentencing because he lacked any financial resources. We disagree.

Here, the district court based the restitution order on the amount of income which Martin will earn during his 10-year term of imprisonment. In light of the 10-year sentence and the modest restitution order, we hold that the court's order was lawful. See United States v. Jackson, 982 F.2d 1279, 1284-85 (9th Cir.1992) ("[I]f, at the end of ... [a sentence], the defendant demonstrates that he has made a good-faith effort at payment, but is unable to pay the full amount, he may petition the court for an extension of time for a remittitur.").

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F.3d 1093, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6725, 1994 WL 20008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-felix-claude-martin-ca9-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack