United States v. Stanley Eugene Farmer

Good Law
26 F.3d 133·1994 WL 245855·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 21719
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 7, 199493-50685California431 words

Opinion

Opinion

26 F.3d 133 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Stanley Eugene FARMER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50685. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 24, 1994. * Decided June 7, 1994. Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 On June 11, 1993, Farmer pleaded guilty to possession of counterfeiting materials in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 474 . At sentencing, Farmer contested several factual findings contained in the presentence report. The district court repeatedly stated that it would not rely on the disputed facts in imposing sentence. The court then sentenced Farmer to 21 months' imprisonment. Farmer appeals. 3 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(D) provides that, if a defendant controverts factual matters in the presentence report, the district court shall either "make (i) a finding as to the allegation, or (ii) a determination that no such finding is…

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.