United States v. Darlin Hernandez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darlin Janett HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Alex Kozinski (author), Nathaniel Bennett, Paul J. Watford
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 11 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50434 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03701-BAS-1 v. DARLIN JANETT HERNANDEZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 9, 2017** Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District Judge.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. Page 2 of 2 1. The district court did not err in rejecting Darlin Hernandez’s vindictive prosecution claim. At the time the government filed the original charge against her, the evidence supporting the bail jumping charge did not exist. Thus, although the government added the bail jumping charge after Hernandez exercised her constitutional right to go to trial, no presumption of vindictiveness arose here. See United States v. Gallegos-Curiel, 681 F.2d 1164, 1168–69 (9th Cir. 1982). That the government sought a default judgment on Hernandez’s bond the same day the district court set the date for trial does not give rise to an inference of vindictiveness given that the prosecutor acted on new information providing a basis for the additional charge. See United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381–82 (1982).
2. The district court did not err in finding that Hernandez was subject to a twenty-year maximum sentence for importing methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C.
§ 960(b)(3). The government was not required to prove that Hernandez knew the precise type or quantity of the drug she imported. See United States v. Jefferson, 791 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir. 2002). Our precedent on this point is not clearly irreconcilable with any of the Supreme Court decisions cited by Hernandez.
AFFIRMED.