Estrada-Cortez

United States v. Estrada-Cortez

Good Law
286 F. App'x 430
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 24, 2008No. 06-50662California596 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant-Appellant Juan Estrada-Cortez appeals from a three-year sentence imposed after pleading guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we affirm.

Estrada-Cortez first contends that the district court erred by failing to provide notice of its intent to depart on a ground not specified in the presentence report (PSR) or the government’s presentencing submission. Because he failed to object in the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Evans-Martinez, 530 F.3d 1164, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2008).

Post-Booker, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h), sentencing courts are required to provide notice of an intent to depart from a Guidelines range, but they need not provide notice of an intent to apply an upward variance pursuant to the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). Irizarry v. United States,-U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2198, 2202 , 171 L.Ed.2d 28 (2008); Evans-Murtinez, 530 F.3d at 1169 . Here, to the extent that the sentencing court failed to provide notice of its…

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.