United States v. Julian Almada-Bueno

588 F. App'x 659
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 17, 2014
Docket14-10030
StatusUnpublished

This text of 588 F. App'x 659 (United States v. Julian Almada-Bueno) 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. Julian Almada-Bueno, 588 F. App'x 659 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Julian Almada-Bueno appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Almada-Bueno contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a reduction to his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. “We review de novo whether the district court misapprehended the law with respect to the acceptance of responsibility reduction.” United States v. Cortes, 299 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir.2002). At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated: “So technically under the way the guidelines work, it appears that he did go to trial. He went to trial because he chose a trial. Based on that I can’t find that there is a basis for an adjustment under acceptance of responsibility.” From this, we cannot determine whether the district court incorrectly believed that Almada-Bueno was ineligible for an acceptance of responsibility reduction because he went to trial. See id. at 1038 (a defendant is eligible for an acceptance of responsibility reduction even if he goes to trial). Because the district court did not squarely rely on any other basis in the record for denying Almada-Bueno the reduction, we vacate Almada-Bueno’s sentence and remand to the district court to reconsider his eligibility for the reduction. See id. at 1039. We express no opinion on the merits of whether Almada-Bueno is entitled to a reduction.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

Related

United States v. Walter Cortes
299 F.3d 1030 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
588 F. App'x 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-julian-almada-bueno-ca9-2014.