U.S. v. Gonzalez-Molina

3 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Ruiz-Apolonio

    657 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that a conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 261 is a "crime of violence" under section 2L1.2 of the sentencing guidelines

    In unpublished opinions, moreover, we, along with at least five other circuits, have similarly rejected versions of the argument that a variance was required after the Commission promulgated the amendment but before the amendment became effective. See, e.g., United States v. Prado–Figueroa, No. 10–10305, –––Fed.Appx. ––––, ––––, 2011 WL 2784098, at *1 (9th Cir. Jul. 18, 2011); United States v. Rodriguez–Sanchez, No. 10–10217, 433 Fed.Appx. 599, 600, 2011 WL 1898202, at *1 (9th Cir. May 19, 2011); United States v. Gonzalez–Molina, 409 Fed.Appx. 751, 752 (5th Cir.2011) (per curiam); In re Anderson, 409 Fed.Appx. 593, 594 (3d Cir.2011) (per curiam); United States v. Gadsden, 412 Fed.Appx. 523, 525 (3d Cir.2011); United States v. Dennis, 412 Fed.Appx. 452, 454–55 (3d Cir.2011); United States v. Mitchell, 402 Fed.Appx. 560, 562 (2d Cir.2010). No circuit has found a sentence substantively unreasonable where, after promulgation of the proposed amendment that reduced the sentencing range, a court declined to vary downward to account for inclusion of recency points in the Guidelines calculation.

  2. U.S. v. Adams

    640 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    Lastly, the several courts of appeals to have considered the issue have rejected claims of error, substantive unreasonableness, and/or declined to remand for a district court's reconsideration of a criminal sentence imposed prior to the elimination of the guidelines' "recency" points. See United States v. Ball, ___ Fed.Appx. ___ 2011 WL 925454 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding sentence was not substantively unreasonable where district court declined to vary CHC based on proposed elimination of "recency" points); United States v. Gonzalez-Molina, 409 Fed.Appx. 751 (5th Cir. 2011) (denying a remand for district court to consider Amendment 742 for a sentence imposed prior to November 1, 2010); In re Anderson, 409 Fed.Appx. 593 (3d Cir. 2011) (denying writs of mandamus and audita querela to compel district court, pursuant to Amendment 742, to reduce sentence imposed prior to November 1, 2010); United States v. Gadsden, 412 Fed.Appx. 543, 2011 WL 179621 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding no district court error in assigning recency points under guidelines applicable at time of sentencing, despite later enactment of Amendment 742), certdenied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2173, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, 2011 WL 1193973 (2011); United States v. Dennis, 412 Fed.Appx. 472, 2011 WL 182119 (3d Cir. 2011) (rejecting claim that sentence was substantively unreasonable where recency points were added to criminal history score even though later-enacted Amendment 742 would have lowered criminal history category had it applied at time of sentencing); United States v. Mitchell, 402 Fed.Appx. 560 (2d Ci

  3. Scarboro v. United States

    CASE NO. 11-61964-CIV-COHN/WHITE (S.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2012)

    Amendment 742 has not been made retroactive, and is therefore not applicable to Petitioner's sentencing. See United States v. Gonzales-Molina, 409 F. App'x 751 (5th Cir. 2011). Further, the Court agrees that Claim 7 fails because Petitioner was in fact informed of the consequences of his plea. He told the Court during the plea colloquy that he had read, understood, and executed the written plea agreement.