Defendant’s mail fraud sentence is affirmed where the District Court correctly held that it was precluded from considering evidence of Defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitation in determining whether it would have imposed the same sentence had it known the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. (Amended opinion)
Read US v. Medina-Villa, No. 07-50396
Appellate Information
Argued and Submitted February 3, 2009
Filed May 28, 2009
Amended June 23, 2009
Judges
Before: Harry Pregerson, Susan P. Graber, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Wardlaw
Counsel
For Appellant:
Michelle D. Anderson, Law Offices of Michelle D. Anderson, San Diego, CA
For Appellee:
Karen P. Hewitt, United States Attorney, San Diego, CA
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
