United States v. Leonires Bravo-Bucio

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Leonires Bravo-Bucio

648 F. App'x 694

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 2016

Docket14-10502

StatusUnpublished

This text of 648 F. App'x 694 (United States v. Leonires Bravo-Bucio) 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. Leonires Bravo-Bucio, 648 F. App'x 694 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Leonires Bravo-Bucio appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bravo-Bucio’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw.

Having independently reviewed the record, we are unable to determine whether the district court accepted the parties’ binding plea agreement. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C). The court never stated whether it was accepting or rejecting the agreement. See United States v. Heredia, 768 F.3d 1220, 1227 (9th Cir.2014). Furthermore, when the court initially calculated the Guidelines range, it did not include the one-level early disposition departure to which the parties stipulated. Although it granted a one-level departure later in the sentencing hearing, it is not clear from the record whether that departure was intended to reflect the stipulated early disposition departure or a downward variance. If the court intended to accept the parties’ agreement and vary downward one level from the stipulated range, it would have arrived at a‘Guidelines range of 37-46 months, rather than, the 41-61 month range calculated by the court. Given the possibility that this is what the court intended, and that a lower “starting point” may have resulted in a lower sentence, we vacate and remand. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2011). On remand, the district court shall state whether it accepts or rejects the plea agreement and proceed accordingly. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(4)-(5).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The district court shall appoint new counsel for Bravo-Bucio- on remand. ’

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

MEMORANDUM **

Leonires Bravo-Bucio appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bravo-Bucio’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw.

Having independently reviewed the record, we are unable to determine whether the district court accepted the parties’ binding plea agreement. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C). The court never stated whether it was accepting or rejecting the agreement. See United States v. Heredia, 768 F.3d 1220, 1227 (9th Cir.2014). Furthermore, when the court initially calculated the Guidelines range, it did not include the one-level early disposition departure to which the parties stipulated. Although it granted a one-level departure later in the sentencing hearing, it is not clear from the record whether that departure was intended to reflect the stipulated early disposition departure or a downward variance. If the court intended to accept the parties’ agreement and vary downward one level from the stipulated range, it would have arrived at a‘Guidelines range of 37-46 months, rather than, the 41-61 month range calculated by the court. Given the possibility that this is what the court intended, and that a lower “starting point” may have resulted in a lower sentence, we vacate and remand. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2011). On remand, the district court shall state whether it accepts or rejects the plea agreement and proceed accordingly. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(4)-(5).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The district court shall appoint new counsel for Bravo-Bucio- on remand. ’

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 F. App'x 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-leonires-bravo-bucio-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack