United States v. Sergio Rafael Gonzalez

981 F.2d 1037, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9713, 92 Daily Journal DAR 16243, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 31860, 1992 WL 354927
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 4, 1992
Docket92-50268
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 981 F.2d 1037 (United States v. Sergio Rafael Gonzalez) 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. Sergio Rafael Gonzalez, 981 F.2d 1037, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9713, 92 Daily Journal DAR 16243, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 31860, 1992 WL 354927 (9th Cir. 1992).

Opinions

ORDER

On June 1, 1992, appellee moved to dismiss this appeal on the basis that appellant [1038]*1038had waived his right to appeal under the provisions of a plea agreement. On June 26, 1992, a panel of this court ordered appellant to submit a statement of the issues he intended to raise on appeal and to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. See United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318 (9th Cir.1990).

In his response, appellant contends, among other issues, that the government breached the plea agreement by opposing a two-level reduction in sentencing for acceptance of responsibility.

If appellant’s contention is true, appellant may be entitled to specific performance or some other relief. See United States v. Goroza, 941 F.2d 905 (1991). We do not decide the merits of appellant’s contention that the government breached the plea agreement.1 However, appellant’s contention calls into question the validity of the waiver. This issue should be resolved by a merits panel, along with any other issues that the merits panel determines are properly before it. Therefore, appellee’s motion to dismiss is denied. Cf. United States v. Hooten, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982).

Appellant’s opening brief and excerpts of record are due January 11,1993; appellee’s brief is due February 10, 1993; the reply brief, if any, is due February 24, 1993.

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

Related

United States v. Alejandro Hernandez
647 F. App'x 715 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Sean Steward
570 F. App'x 705 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Robert Lemke v. Charles Ryan
719 F.3d 1093 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Alicia Shayne Lovera v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2010
Donnie Wheeler v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2001
Brett Rae v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2000
United States v. Astacio
14 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Virginia, 1998)
United States v. William H. Hicks
129 F.3d 376 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Bogusz
Third Circuit, 1994
United States v. Emiro Gonzalez, AKA Emiro Gonzales
40 F.3d 1247 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Michael D. Heath
24 F.3d 250 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Sergio Rafael Gonzalez
6 F.3d 1415 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Kuhl
816 F. Supp. 623 (S.D. California, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
981 F.2d 1037, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9713, 92 Daily Journal DAR 16243, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 31860, 1992 WL 354927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sergio-rafael-gonzalez-ca9-1992.