United States v. Matthew Eugene Dupas

Bad Law
419 F.3d 916·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15938
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 16, 200504-50055California3,928 words

Opinion

Opinion

Graber, J.

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The opinion filed on August 3, 2005, slip opinion at 9059, and appearing at 417 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir.2005), is amended as follows:

On slip opinion page 9066 n. 3, appearing at 417 F.3d at 1068 n. 3, 2005 WL 1845503 , at *3 n. 3, change “The Ex Post Facto Clause of the Fifth Amendment,” to “The Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, Section 9,”.

On slip opinion page 9069 n. 5, appearing at 417 F.3d at 1069 n. 5, 2005 WL 1845503 , at *4 n. 5, replace footnote 5 with the following:

Petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc may be filed.

OPINION

Defendant Matthew Eugene Dupas appeals the sentence imposed after his conviction for possessing stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 . The government concedes that Defendant’s sentence of imprisonment may be remanded to the district court pursuant to our decision in United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), because that sentence rested on the district court’s finding of fact as to the amount of loss and was imposed according to the then-mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines. Here, we address two other challenges to Defendant’s sentence, both of which present…

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.