Doe

United States v. Doe

Good Law
15 F.3d 1091·1994 WL 6591·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6355
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 10, 199493-50246California985 words

Opinion

Opinion

15 F.3d 1091 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. DOE, ** Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50246. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 5, 1994. * Decided Jan. 10, 1994. 1 Before: GOODWIN and HALL, Circuit Judges; TANNER, District Judge. *** 2 MEMORANDUM **** 3 Doe appeals his 100-month sentence imposed after a guilty plea to two counts of armed and unarmed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (a) and (d). We affirm. 4 The only issue the defendant raises on appeal is the district court's refusal to grant a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines range. The presentence report calculated Doe's sentencing range at 100 to 125 months based on an offense level of 24 and a criminal history of VI. 5 Prior to sentencing, Doe moved for a downward departure based on the ground that a "complex of factors" existed in his case that justified it. See United States v. Cook, 938 F.2d 149…

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.