United States v. Ozine Bridgeforth

Good Law
441 F.3d 864·2006 WL 786474·69 Fed. R. Serv. 904·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7658
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 29, 200604-50183California3,729 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

Ozine Bridgeforth was convicted of two counts of distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), and one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . On appeal, Bridgeforth argues that his right to confrontation was violated when the district court limited cross-examination of a paid informant and admitted two out-of-court statements as admissions of a co-conspirator. He argues also that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment and that the court erred in sentencing him as a career offender. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm his convictions. However, because Bridge-forth was improperly sentenced as a career offender, we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of two drug transactions observed and recorded by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). On August 20, 1999, Deshonda Aldridge, a paid informant for the FBI, drove to the 1800 block of East Pine Street in Compton, California, to purchase an ounce of crack cocaine. Aldridge was looking for a man named Steven Rhodes, with whom she had conducted narcotics…

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.