Stadnisky

United States v. Stadnisky

Good Law
309 F. App'x 185
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 20, 2009Nos. 07-10145, 07-10239California1,311 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Co-defendants Scott Stadnisky (“Stadnisky”) and Daniel Lynn Myers (“Myers”) were convicted by a jury in 2006 of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). Stadnisky was sentenced to 240 months’ imprison *187 ment. Myers was sentenced to 336 months’ imprisonment.

Stadnisky appeals his sentence, and Myers appeals his conviction. We affirm in all respects.

Stadnisky, No. 07-10145

Stadnisky argues that the district court erred in sentencing him beyond the statutory maximum based on facts not found by the jury. Other than a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a conviction beyond the Congressionally-enacted statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); see also Cunningham, v. California, 549 U.S. 270 , 127 S.Ct. 856, 863-68 , 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007). In the post-Booker advisory sentencing guidelines scheme, a district court is permitted to find additional facts that increase a defendant’s guideline sentence, so long as 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.