From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Hitchcock

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 21, 2002
298 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2002)

Summary

holding that in light of Harris, "[i]t is now clear that mandatory minimums do not implicate Apprendi."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Toliver

Opinion

No. 00-10251.

Argued and Submitted May 15, 2001. Submission Withdrawn May 21, 2001. Resubmitted August 23, 2001.

Opinion Withdrawn September 26, 2001. Amended Opinion Filed March 21, 2002. Second Amendment Filed August 2, 2002.

Initially this appeal was submitted following oral argument on May 15, 2001. The panel issued an order withdrawing submission pending the outcome in United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 2001). Antonakeas was decided prior to our filing of the original opinion. Subsequent to filing the original opinion on August 23, 2001, we withdrew the opinion on September 26, 2001, pending the en banc opinion in United States v. Buckland, 277 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2002). That opinion was filed January 18, 2002. We now file our amended opinion.

Sarah Courageous, Honolulu, Hawai'i, for the defendant-appellant.

Loretta Sheehan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, Hawai'i, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i; Alan C. Kay, District Court Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-98-00716-ACK.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CANBY and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.



ORDER

The Amended Opinion United States v. Hitchcock, 286 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002), filed March 21, 2002, is amended as follows:

At 286 F.3d at 1073, amend the last two sentences in the paragraph before the "Conclusion" to read:

"Hitchcock's argument is foreclosed by Harris v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), and our prior precedent. It is now clear that mandatory minimums do not implicate Apprendi. Id."

The mandate shall issue forthwith.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Hitchcock

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 21, 2002
298 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2002)

holding that in light of Harris, "[i]t is now clear that mandatory minimums do not implicate Apprendi."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Toliver
Case details for

U.S. v. Hitchcock

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven HITCHCOCK…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 21, 2002

Citations

298 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2002)

Citing Cases

United States v. Dreyer

We also review de novo the question whether the PCA was violated because it is a mixed question of fact and…

United States v. Hurd

We find no error in the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress. See United States v.…