Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Gavilanes-Ocaranza

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 25, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RODOLFO GAVILANES-OCARANZA, Defendant-Appellant

Submitted, Pasadena, California: October 7, 2014 [*].

Page 625

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01607-L-1. M. James Lorenz, Senior District Judge, Presiding.

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation.

The panel held that the revocation of supervised release and the imposition of additional prison time do not violate the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a speedy trial, even when the revocation and sentencing take place years after the original conviction. The panel also held that Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), does not affect the validity of the determination in United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2006), that the revocation of supervised release and the imposition of additional prison time pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583 do not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

Joan Kerry Bader, San Diego, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Alexandra F. Foster and Bruce Castetter, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Laura E. Duffy, United States Attorney, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and John W. Sedwick,[**] District Judge. Opinion by Judge Graber.

OPINION

Page 626

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Rodolfo Gavilanes-Ocaranza pleaded guilty to being a removed alien found in the United States, a violation of the terms of his federal supervised release. The district court revoked Defendant's supervised release and sentenced him to an additional 12 months' imprisonment. Defendant raises several constitutional and other challenges to that sentence. In this published opinion, we address only his Sixth Amendment claims. We address his other arguments in an unpublished memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion.

Because Defendant did not raise his Sixth Amendment objections before the district court, we review for plain error, United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), and we affirm. We hold that the revocation of supervised release and the imposition of additional prison time do not violate the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a speedy trial, even when the revocation and sentencing take place years after the original conviction. We also hold that Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), does not affect the validity of our determination in United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2006), that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.