United States v. Norman Anthony King, AKA Norm King AKA Norman August Klause

Good Law
419 F.3d 1035·2005 WL 1950287·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17235
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 16, 200599-10478, 01-10720California258 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

In this case, we affirmed the judgment of conviction on December 23, 2002. The mandate issued on March 11, 2003. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 2, 2003. On August 9, 2004, defendant-appellant King filed a pro se motion “requesting amendment to [the] mandate and remand for resentencing” in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We construe this motion as a motion to recall the mandate, and deny it.

We will recall a mandate only “in extraordinary circumstances.” Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 550 , 118 S.Ct. 1489 , 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998) (power to recall mandate is “one of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies”). See also Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460-61 (9th Cir.1996). The circumstances here do not qualify as such. Although the Supreme Court has invalidated the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines under which King was sentenced, the remedy put in place allows sentencing judges to continue to apply the Guidelines, albeit under a new discretionary regime in which other factors are relevant. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-68 ; 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). At…

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.