The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-10274•United States of America v. Omar Leonardo Iniguez
14-10274Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 25, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR LEONARDO INIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10274
D.C. No. 4:11-cr-01470-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Omar Leonardo Iniguez appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
remand for resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for various firearms
offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Iniguez contends that the district court violated his due process rights
FILED
JUN 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
because it imposed the same sentence on remand despite the fact that the advisory
Guidelines range had been reduced one additional offense level for acceptance of
responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). The record reflects that the district court
determined that the prior sentence remained appropriate on remand. Accordingly,
the district court did not violate Iniguez’s due process rights. See United States v.
Horob, 735 F.3d 866, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).
Iniguez also contends that the court was obligated to depart or vary
downward to the same extent it had at his initial sentencing hearing. This
argument is unpersuasive. The record reflects that the district court varied
downward from the Guidelines range at both sentencing hearings. Its decision to
vary downward 22 months at the resentencing hearing, rather than 27 months, was
not an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
14-10274 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.