United States v. Gallardo-Arredondo
This text of 4 F. App'x 513 (United States v. Gallardo-Arredondo) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM2
Victor Gallardo-Arredondo appeals his conviction and 12-month and one-day sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960(b)(4). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gallardo-Arredondo contends that his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Because Gallardo-Arredondo did not object at sentencing, we review for plain error. See United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2000).
The district court’s imposition of a 12-month and one-day sentence is far less that the five-year statutory maximum to which Gallardo-Arredondo was subject, based on the facts admitted to at the time he pleaded guilty. See 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(4). Because the district court’s findings did not raise Gallardo-Arredondo’s sentence beyond that which he would have received based on the facts admitted [514]*514to at the change of plea hearing, he cannot show that any error affected the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings. See United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 227 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 F. App'x 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gallardo-arredondo-ca9-2001.