U.S. v. Sanders

47 Citing cases

  1. U. S. v. Bonner

    440 F.3d 414 (7th Cir. 2006)   Cited 15 times
    In Banner we had ordered a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), to allow the district court to state whether it would have sentenced the defendants differently had it known that the sentencing guidelines were advisory, not mandatory.

    The Second and the Ninth Circuit have addressed this issue and reached similar conclusions, although they employ slightly different remand procedures. See United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005). Similar to the decision we reach today, the Ninth Circuit held that a full remand for a resentencing hearing, rather than its standard limited remand, was appropriate in a case where the district court judge had retired while the case was on appeal.

  2. United States v. Lane

    No. 19-10317 (9th Cir. May. 21, 2021)

    Where a defendant does not object to jury instructions at trial, this court reviews for plain error. United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2005). The defendant must show there is "(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights," and "(4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."

  3. United States v. Murphy

    No. 13-50247 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014)

    Accordingly, there is no plain error. See United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). Murphy next contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to appreciate its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S. Ct. 558, 169 L. Ed. 2d 481 (2007) to deviate from the Sentencing Guidelines based on policy differences with the Guidelines.

  4. U.S. v. Reed

    575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 181 times
    Holding that there was no Jencks Act violation when a government agent "had taken handwritten notes of interviews, converted them into a typed report, and then destroyed the original notes" because there was no evidence that the notes were "adopted or approved by any of the witnesses"

    Therefore, we review these instructions for plain error. United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). To show plain error, Williams must prove that there is: "(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affect[s] substantial rights.

  5. U.S. v. Lyons

    453 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that "the jury need not be unanimous on the particular false promise"

    Because this issue was not raised at trial, we review for plain error. United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir.2005). Ordinarily, the "general unanimity instruction suffices to instruct the jury that they must be unanimous on whatever specifications form the basis of the guilty verdict."

  6. U.S. v. Sahanaja

    430 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    Because we conclude that the search of the package was lawful under the extended border search doctrine, we affirm the conviction. Pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 419 F.3d 906, 916(9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, S.Ct., ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 636, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, 2005 WL 2922683 (2005), and United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2005), we vacate the sentence and remand to the district court for a new sentencing hearing. BACKGROUND

  7. U.S. v. Allen

    425 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 130 times
    Holding that an "isolated reference to [the defendant's] prior incarceration did not warrant a mistrial," while noting that "any resulting prejudice dissipated when the district court immediately gave a curative instruction to the jury"

    On appeal, Allen maintains that there was insufficient evidence to support his firearm conviction; that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation; that a government witness's allusion to Allen's previous incarceration warranted a mistrial; that the district court failed to appreciate that it had discretion to depart downward on Allen's sentence based on a tragic personal history and the disproportionate impact of a prior conviction; and that the enhancement of his sentence using judge-found facts violated the Sixth Amendment. We affirm the convictions and, because the sentencing judge is no longer available, we order a remand for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), and United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005). I BACKGROUND

  8. People v. Martin

    No. 368004 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2024)

    Defendant contends that because in this case the Crosby remand was conducted by a successor judge rather than the trial judge who sentenced him originally, resentencing is required by federal law, specifically in light of United States v Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044 (CA 9, 2005) and United States v Bonner, 440 F.3d 414 (CA 7, 2006). This issue was addressed by this Court in People v Howard, 323 Mich.App. 239, 247-253; 916 N.W.2d 654 (2018), in relevant part:

  9. United States v. Archuleta

    No. 23-399 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2024)

    1. When, as here, the defendant did not object to a jury instruction at trial, we review the instruction for plain error. United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, Archuleta must show "(1) an error (2) that is plain, (3) that affects 'substantial rights,' and (4) that 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'"

  10. United States v. Garcia

    No. 21-50265 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023)

    2. Defendant did not object to the jury instructions before the district court, so plain error review applies. United States v. Sanders, 421 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2005).