United States v. Pedro Cazares

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Pedro Cazares

145 F.3d 1341, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 19995, 1998 WL 246670

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 1998

Docket97-30029

StatusUnpublished

This text of 145 F.3d 1341 (United States v. Pedro Cazares) 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. Pedro Cazares, 145 F.3d 1341, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 19995, 1998 WL 246670 (9th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

145 F.3d 1341

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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

No. 97-30029.
D.C. No. CR-93-00006-HJF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 19982.
Decided May 14, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Helen J. Frye, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1

Defendant Pedro Cazares appeals the district court's order imposing a thirty-three month federal sentence to run consecutively to a sentence imposed on Cazares by the State of Illinois. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

To the extent that Cazares is appealing the judgment imposing the sentence on February 24, 1994, his appeal is time-barred, and we have no jurisdiction to consider it. United States v. Green, 89 F.3d 657, 660 (9th Cir.1996). The district court properly denied Cazares' "Petition for Clarification." Although the court's judgment and findings of fact did not address whether the sentences were to run consecutively or concurrently, the statutory default provides for sentences imposed at different times to run consecutively unless the court orders otherwise. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Thus, the district court properly construed its early order as providing for consecutive sentences.

AFFIRMED

1

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

2

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)

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

145 F.3d 1341

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.
Pedro CAZARES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-30029.
D.C. No. CR-93-00006-HJF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 19982.
Decided May 14, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Helen J. Frye, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1

Defendant Pedro Cazares appeals the district court's order imposing a thirty-three month federal sentence to run consecutively to a sentence imposed on Cazares by the State of Illinois. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

To the extent that Cazares is appealing the judgment imposing the sentence on February 24, 1994, his appeal is time-barred, and we have no jurisdiction to consider it. United States v. Green, 89 F.3d 657, 660 (9th Cir.1996). The district court properly denied Cazares' "Petition for Clarification." Although the court's judgment and findings of fact did not address whether the sentences were to run consecutively or concurrently, the statutory default provides for sentences imposed at different times to run consecutively unless the court orders otherwise. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Thus, the district court properly construed its early order as providing for consecutive sentences.

AFFIRMED

1

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

2

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F.3d 1341, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 19995, 1998 WL 246670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pedro-cazares-ca9-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack