United States v. Mario Joseph Baldrich

Good Law
471 F.3d 1110·2006 WL 3782951·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 31818
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 27, 200605-50676California2,495 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikuta, J.

Mario Baldrieh pleaded guilty to five counts of bank robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). At sentencing, the district court denied Baldrich’s request for disclosure of the United States probation officer’s confidential sentencing recommendation as allowed by Rule 32(e)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The district court also rejected Baldrich’s argument that he was entitled to a reduction in his offense level under section 3El.l(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

On appeal, Baldrieh raises two challenges to these rulings. First, he argues that the district court violated his right to due process at sentencing by denying his motion to disclose the probation officer’s confidential sentencing recommendation. By the same token, Baldrieh argues that Rule 32(e)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional to the extent it allows the court to withhold the recommendation. Second, he argues that the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his offense level under section 3El.l(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines violated his constitutional rights to proceed to trial and to effective…

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.