United States v. Sanchez-Hernandez

280 F. App'x 638
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 28, 2008·No. No. 06-50261·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Reymundo Sanchez-Hernandez appeals from the 262-month sentence imposed upon remand following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, conspiracy to import methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 968, distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The government contends that, pursuant to United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir.2006), Sanchez-Hernandez is precluded from arguing that the district court imposed a vindictive sentence on remand. We conclude that Combs is not applicable because this case was not remanded pursuant to the limited remand procedure adopted in United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Sanchez-Hernandez contends that vindictive sentencing may be presumed in this case because his sentence was increased on remand by more than six years based on the same facts that existed at the time of his initial sentencing. Because the district court’s reasons for the sentence affirmatively appear in the record, no presumption of vindictiveness exists. See United States v. Peyton, 353 F.3d 1080, 1085-87 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Sanchez-Hernandez, 280 F. App'x 638 (9th Cir. 2008).

280 F. App'x 638 (United States v. Sanchez-Hernandez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Fatima Peyton
353 F.3d 1080 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Alfred Arnold Ameline
409 F.3d 1073 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Robert F. Combs
470 F.3d 1294 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)