Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
10-10501•United States of America v. Jose Benjamin Hernandez
10-10501Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit24.04.2012
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE BENJAMIN HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10501
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01114-GMS-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 19, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Jose Benjamin Hernandez appeals the district court’s imposition
of a sentence of 235 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
FILED
APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2
§§ 841 and 846, and to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. We affirm.
1. The district court did not clearly err by finding that it was "reasonably
foreseeable" that Defendant’s co-conspirator would possess a firearm under
U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v. Ortiz, 362 F.3d
1274, 1275 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining the findings that a district court must
make). The sentencing transcript makes clear that the district court found that,
whether Defendant or the government had the burden of proof, the evidence
overwhelmingly supported a finding of reasonable foreseeability. We agree.
2. The district court did not otherwise err at sentencing. See generally
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district
court adequately considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and its imposition
of a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range was reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.