United States v. Ricardo Cordero-Ontiveros
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50622 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03510-LAB-1 Southern District of California, v. San Diego RICARDO CORDERO-ONTIVEROS, ORDER Defendant - Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and HOLLAND, Senior District Judge.* The memorandum disposition filed December 21, 2010, is hereby amended as follows: At page 3, lines 4-5, replace “It was logical and reasonable for the district court to use Cordero’s past sentences as a starting point for setting his new sentence” with “It was logical and reasonable for the district court to set Cordero’s sentence higher than his past sentences”.
With this amendment, the petition for rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained.
* The Honorable H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Alaska, Anchorage, sitting by designation.