United States v. Martin Estrada-Plata

Good Law
57 F.3d 757·95 Daily Journal DAR 7444·1995 WL 346098·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 14274·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4427
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 9, 199594-50178, 94-56538California2,771 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hawkins, J.

We consider here claims that the government has some obligation to make available a discretionary plea agreement to a defendant who: (a) fails to meet fair and uniformly applied time requirements; and (b) in any event, refuses to unconditionally accept the government’s offer. We hold the government has no such obligation.

Defendant Martin Estrada-Plata (“Estrada”) was convicted and sentenced to 57 months in custody for being a deported alien found in the United States after a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b). Estrada’s consolidated appeals concern the government’s application of its early disposition (“fast-track”) plea bargaining policy for § 1326(b) cases. Estrada, who did not plead under the fast-track policy, claims he was subjected to selective prosecution. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motions to dismiss the indictment, refusal to depart downward on his sentence, and denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on that basis. He also claims that his 57-month sentence violates due process and the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2255, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Fast-Track Policy

On July 22, 1993,…

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.