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)
20-10226•United States of America v. Ernesto Hernandez
20-10226Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit06.08.2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERNESTO HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-10226
D.C. No.
1:13-cr-00511-JMS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Ernesto Hernandez appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his
motion to modify his term of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review a district court’s decision on a motion for
FILED
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
modification of a term of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court’s factual findings were supported by the record, and the
court applied the correct law by determining whether “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant[ed]” a reduction in Hernandez’s term of imprisonment
and “considering the factors set forth in” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) “to the extent they
[were] applicable[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th
1278, 1283–84 (9th Cir. 2021). Hernandez’s briefing alleges factual developments
occurring after the district court’s decision, but this case does not fall within any
exception to our rule that we do not consider matters outside the district court
record on appeal. Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024–25 (9th Cir. 2003).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion.
AFFIRMED.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.