United States v. Gilberto Redondo-Lemos, United States of America v. Angel Nolasco-Cota, United States of America v. Sergio Alcaraz-Peralta

Opinion by Judge KOZINSKI.

These cases return to us following our remand in United States v. Redondo-Lemos, 955 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir.1992) (Redondo-Lemos I). In that appeal, we reviewed a district judge’s finding that the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona was committing equal protection violations by treating male drug carriers more harshly in plea bargaining than similarly situated females. We noted that “[a] district judge who perceives a pattern of invidious enforcement has ample authority under the court’s supervisory powers to raise the matter sua sponte.” Id. at 1298 ; see also id. at 1301. We also held that, had invidious discrimination been proven, the district judge’s chosen remedy — giving defendants a sentence below the statutory minimum — would have been warranted.

On the record presented in Redondo-Le-mos I, however, we reversed, as there had been no showing of intentional discrimination; the district judge’s own observation of disparate impact “at best, established] a pri-ma facie case.” Id. at 1301 . Without more, however, it provided “an insufficient basis” for finding “that the prosecutor was motivated by a discriminatory purpose in…