Acosta

United States v. Acosta

Good Law
176 F. App'x 755
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 10, 2006No. 04-10684California607 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant and appellant Jaime Pena Acosta is currently serving a 168-month sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(viii), and one count of importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(1)(H). Although we find no merit in Acosta’s arguments on appeal, we remand for reconsideration of the sentence pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Acosta challenges on Sixth Amendment grounds the district court’s determination of the amount of drugs possessed, which it used to calculate the base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. But at his change of plea hearing, Acosta agreed with the Government’s allegation of the quantity of drugs possessed. The district court committed no error in relying upon Acosta’s own admissions to determine the appropriate Guidelines range. 1 *757 See, e.g., United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (reaffirming that facts necessary to support a sentence higher than the…

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.