Hinojosa-Gonzalez

United States v. Hinojosa-Gonzalez

Good Law
132 F.3d 1314·97 Daily Journal DAR 25·1997 WL 796353·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 36407·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 21
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 31, 1997No. 96-50584California611 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Following his plea of guilty to four drug possession counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), and one conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute count under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846, Carlos Hinojosa-Gonzales was sentenced to 480 months in prison and 20 years of supervised release, and was fined $3 million. He appeals his sentence. We have 'jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a).

I

Hinojosa argues the district court failed to provide him with adequate notice of the grounds for its decision to grant the Government’s upward departure motion, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. See Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 138 , 111 S.Ct. 2182, 2187 , 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991); United States v. Rafferty, 911 F.2d 227, 230 (9th Cir.1990). We assess the adequacy of notice de novo. See United States v. Karterman, 60 F.3d 576, 583 (9th Cir.1995).

In Bums, the Supreme Court highlighted Rule 32’s goal of “focused, adversarial development of the factual and legal issues relevant to determining the appropriate Guidelines sentence,” 501 U.S. at 134 , 111 S.Ct. at 2185 , and concluded this “requires the district court [to] give the parties…

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.