United States v. Guillermo Flores-Rodriguez

Good Law
87 F.3d 1323·1996 WL 335360·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31535
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 17, 199695-10361California454 words

Opinion

Opinion

87 F.3d 1323 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Guillermo FLORES-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-10361. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 13, 1996. * Decided June 17, 1996. Before: SNEED, PREGERSON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Any error committed in not applying USSG § 5G1.3(c) was harmless. As defendant correctly points out, ER at 16, had the district court applied the methodology of § 5G1.3 cmt. 3, it would have considered the sentence he would have received had he been sentenced simultaneously for his state drug offenses and his federal crime. He also correctly calculates that his combined offense level would have been 21. ER at 17; PSR at 3. Defendant's only error is his assumption that the two-year statutory maximum for 18 U.S.C. § 1326 that confines his actual sentence to 24 months would also apply if he were sentenced for both his…

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.