United States v. Martin Antonio Huertas-Flores

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Martin Antonio Huertas-Flores

124 F.3d 214, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 31709, 1997 WL 572420

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 15, 1997

Docket97-50038

StatusUnpublished

This text of 124 F.3d 214 (United States v. Martin Antonio Huertas-Flores) 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. Martin Antonio Huertas-Flores, 124 F.3d 214, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 31709, 1997 WL 572420 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

124 F.3d 214

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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

No. 97-50038.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 8, 1997.**
Filed September 15, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, D.C. No. CR-96-01355-LCN; Leland C. Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HALL, BRUNETTI, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Martin Antonio Huertas-Flores appeals his sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry by a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). We dismiss.

Huertas-Flores contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a two-level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 in recognition of his willingness to stipulate to deportation and to waive any rights to a contested deportation hearing. There is no indication in the record, however, that the district. court's refusal to depart was based on the belief that it could not do so as a matter of law. See United States v. Pinto, 48 F.3d 384, 389 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the district court's decision to deny Huertas-Flores' request for a downward departure is not reviewable on appeal. See United States v. Webster, 108 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir.1997) (district court "need not say affirmatively that it had the discretion to depart"); United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 927 F.2d 489, 491 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (same).

DISMISSED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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 pro-vided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

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

124 F.3d 214

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.
Martin Antonio HUERTAS-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-50038.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 8, 1997.**
Filed September 15, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, D.C. No. CR-96-01355-LCN; Leland C. Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HALL, BRUNETTI, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Martin Antonio Huertas-Flores appeals his sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry by a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). We dismiss.

Huertas-Flores contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a two-level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 in recognition of his willingness to stipulate to deportation and to waive any rights to a contested deportation hearing. There is no indication in the record, however, that the district. court's refusal to depart was based on the belief that it could not do so as a matter of law. See United States v. Pinto, 48 F.3d 384, 389 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the district court's decision to deny Huertas-Flores' request for a downward departure is not reviewable on appeal. See United States v. Webster, 108 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir.1997) (district court "need not say affirmatively that it had the discretion to depart"); United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 927 F.2d 489, 491 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (same).

DISMISSED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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 pro-vided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F.3d 214, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 31709, 1997 WL 572420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-martin-antonio-huertas-flores-ca9-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack