United States v. Marcos Sanchez-Venegas

Good Law
590 F. App'x 709
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 23, 201513-50558California235 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Marcos Sanchez-Venegas appeals his sentence upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Sanchez-Venegas contends that the district court violated his right of allocution and constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and due process when it threatened to impose the statutory maximum sentence if defense counsel continued to advocate for a lower sentence. The district court ultimately imposed the sentence it tentatively announced prior to threatening Sanchez-Venegas with a greater sentence. Sanchez-Venegas did not object at the time of sentencing, but the nature of the district court’s comments constitutes “exceptional circumstances,” and so we review the legality of the sentence de novo. United States v. Echavarria-Escobar, 270 F.3d 1265, 1267-68 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court’s limitation on defense counsel’s argument at sentencing does not amount to a violation of due process or Sanchez-Venegas’s right to effective assistance of counsel. See Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862-863 , 95 S.Ct. 2550 , 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975). Sanchez-Venegas was also given the opportunity to allocute.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.