Palma

United States v. Palma

Good Law
7 F. App'x 748
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 11, 2001No. 97-50568; D.C. No. CR-92-00254-JGDCalifornia1,513 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Roland Ronquillo Palma was convicted for conspiring to distribute in excess of 100 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846 and for two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). He was sentenced to a term of 235 months on each count to run concurrently, five years of supervised release, and a $150 special assessment. Palma appeals his conviction and sentencing on numerous grounds. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary.

I

Palma argues that an unreasonable delay in the processing of his appeal violated his right to due process and requires reversal of his conviction. “[Ejxtreme delay in the processing of an appeal may amount to a violation of due process.” United States v. Antoine, 906 F.2d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir.1990). Four factors are considered in evaluating claims of appellate delay: “(1) the length of delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant.” United States v. Tucker, 8 F.3d 673, 676 (9th Cir.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.