United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Felix Nicholas Medina, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

court, addition, provision sec- offender before 1950). a conviction under charge of supported by subject plain his claim to error we must can tion 11360 52(b). marijuana per- Plain transportation Fed.R.Crim.P. simple analysis. See (3) People Rogers, (2) v. Cal.3d (1) error, See plain, sonal use. that is error is: 486 P.2d Cal.Rptr. Perez, rights. substantial affects Eastman, (in bank); (Cal.1971) People v. The error this case is F.3d 846. Cal.Rptr.2d Cal.App.4th record, evident from an examination Because the statu- (Ct.App.1993). 612-13 statute, A sentenc guidelines. and the 11360(a) and Cali- of section tory definition when it rights affects substantial ing error to be a conviction permit case law fornia subjects an individual to an increased sen marijuana transportation based on Velez, tence. See United States use, could be convict- a defendant personal Cir.1999). 1137, 1140 4 In this n. 11360(a) without commit- ed under section caused Casarez-Bravo’s the error controlled sub- qualifying ting one of Thus, four-fold. sentence to be increased 4B1.1. delineated stance offenses a plain to relief even under he is entitled Thus, the statute under which reference to analysis. error justi- convicted cannot was Casarez-Bravo and remand for We vacate the sentence convictions the 1988 or 1996 fy using either resentencing with instructions Casa- finding. a career criminal as a basis for as a career rez-Bravo not be sentenced any ad- did not tender Sentencing criminal under the Guidelines. prove facts to judicially noticeable ditional qualified. convictions that the 1988 or 1996 AND REMANDED FOR REVERSED only docu- Report-the The Pre-Sentence RESENTENCING. information record-contains no ment in the It notes simply conviction. on the 1988 pled guilty to

that Casarez-Bravo marijuana” pursu-

“sale/transportation of “[t]he 11360 and that arrest

ant to section longer above was no

report case Also, probation was report no

available. Therefore, details of the of-

prepared. Report Knox, Deputy

Monica Federal Public Defender, California, Angeles, Los for the defendant-appellant-cross-appellee. Gregory Weingart, Luis Li and J. Assis- Attorneys, tant United Ange- States Los les, California, for the plaintiff-appellee- cross-appellant. FLETCHER, THOMPSON,

Before: LEAVY, Judges. Circuit LEAVY, Judge: Senior Circuit appeals Felix Nicholas Medina his con- viction for armed and using bank committing a firearm while a violent crime 2113(a) (d) § in violation of 18 U.S.C. search, re- 924(c). found a .38 caliber Medina contends and 18 U.S.C. into evi- revolver was booked volver. This denying his erred Depart- Angeles Los Police dence at the to de- evidentiary hearing request charged was arrested ment. Medina lawfully termine a fire- possession being a felon ar- cross-appeals, seized. after were dismissed charges arm. Those by im- erred district court that the guing granted Medina’s municipal judge court consecutive rather than concurrent posing judge The deter- suppress. motion to ten convic- six of Medina’s sentences the reason- mined that 924(c). affirm 18 U.S.C. tions under the ear Medina was suspicion stop to able evidentiary an denial of court’s district the revolver, however, remained driving. The of concur- imposition hearing, reverse Angeles police. the Los custody in the of sentences, for resentenc- remand and rent later, ing. in May four months About investiga- Medina was identified string in a possible suspect tors as a I. rob- robberies. One of the armed bank to armed pled guilty In Medina gun had described a car and bery victims to 63 robbery and was sentenced bank gun car and involved similar the to release from After his prison. months stop. Fol- January traffic Medina’s How- to deported he was Mexico. prison, lead, investigators the federal lowing this Medina ever, deportation, within months caliber revolver Medina’s .38 retrieved and em- the United States to returned custody in the of the Los which still was robbery spree on a bank barked investigators The federal Angeles police. convicted. he now stands ballistics tests discovered conducted armed separate ten committed Medina had gun the revolver was the period eight-month in an bank robberies in one of the robberies. Medi- fired a shot May September between na arrested on the bank was trial, suppress Medina moved Prior to 29,1996. May on caliber hand- which included .25 arrest, the After his Medina described handgun. These two and a .38 caliber gun had bank various he the guns to at least six of guns linked Medina investigators that robberies. He told the guns had been robberies. ten bank he gun had the .25 caliber when he lost as de- separate in two searches seized airplane flight. it an had tried to take on below. scribed infor- investigators up followed this 1995, Medina checked his December gun the .25 caliber mation and retrieved at the Los at a ticket counter luggage custody Los which was still x-rayed was Angeles airport. luggage His Angeles police. Medina handgun and a was discovered. hearing At on Medina’s motion to counter, paged to return to ticket

was two suppress, argued Medina airport police return. The but he did not searches were warrantless without from Medi- handgun a .25 caliber removed requested He an eviden- probable cause. to the Los luggage and turned over na’s hearing legality on the of the tiary Angeles Department. Police The district denied searches. an evi- later, suppress holding without January motion About one month hearing and without a Angeles dentiary Los determina- stopped by was Medina were lawful. the searches registration tags on the whether police because the if the reasoned that even expired. The district court driving apparently had car he was seized, unlawfully been provide guns was unable to had Because Medina at license, subject suppression because car were not of a driver’s was proof searches, law the local the time of During and searched. impounded did not have the ducted state and local enforcement authorities officials and the their evidence seized investigation subsequently within “zone of used in a federal criminal trial. Medina interest.” Medina contends overextends holding. the Elkins is in error under Elkins v. ruling in 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 “supervisory voked its ppwer over the ad justice ministration of criminal in the fed

II. eral courts” to exclude evidence obtained in an unlawful state search. question presented is 80 S.Ct. 1437. The Court requires the Fourth Amendment as stated that the legality test of the sessment of two law, state search “is one of federal neither admissibility searches to determine the enlarged by may what one state court have the evidence Medina’s bank countenanced, nor by diminished what an reject argument trial. We Medina’s that may colorably other suppressed.” requires Elkins such an assessment. Elkins, 223-24, 364 U.S. at 80 S.Ct. 1437. officials a state obtained later, year One the Court decided Mapp v. search warrant based information . Ohio, 643, 1684, 367 U.S 81 S.Ct. possessed the defendants motion obscene (1961), L.Edüd 1081 which established the pictures. The search revealed no obscene exclusionary constitutionally rale as a re wiretap but pictures, paraphernalia quired remedy unlawful searches at for. found and seized. The defendants were Thus, both the state and federal level.2 wiretap charges, indicted state court on Mapp, identity under the of the sovereign the state the court held search unlaw- (state, federal) conducting or the search is inadmissible, ful and the evidence so irrelevant to the application of the exclu Shortly indictment was dismissed. there- Nevertheless, sionary rule. the Elkins after, wiretap-ev- federal officers used the holding rejecting platter the “silver doc bring idence to federal wiretap trine” is still valid. See United States v. against the defendants. The Supreme (9th Perez-Castro, 251, Cir. rejected the platter so-called “silver 1979) (“The may Government not success “evidence, doctrine,”1 and held that ob- fully illegal done'by assert that the act was by during tained state officers a search state or local officers and therefore the which, officers, by if conducted subsequently statements taken are admis would have violated the defendant’s im- prosecution, sible a federal without con munity unreasonable searches and by as to the method which they cern were under seizures the Fourth Amendment is 223, (citing obtained.” 364 U.S. at timely inadmissible over the defendant’s 1437)). way, 80 S.Ct. Stated another El- objection in a criminal trial.” El- kins continues to forbid the federal gov kins, 223-24,.80 364 U.S. at making argument ernment from argues search, sovereign Medina Elkins mandates an another conducted the ignore by assessment of the of the two therefore it can methods searches because the searches were con- which the search was conducted. Romero, phrase platter

1. The v. "silver doctrine” was United States 397 n. by Lustig (9th Cir.1978). Justice Frankfurter in v. United 74, 79, 69 S.Ct. (1949), proce- L.Ed. 1819 dure refers Stewart, Mapp 2. See Potter v. Road whereby illegally evidence seized Beyond: Origins, Development Ohio and state officers could be admitted in federal Exclusionary and Future Rule in Search long par- court so as federal officers did not Cases, 83 Colum. L.Rev. Seizure ticipate seizure. The state offi- 1379-80 illegally cers were said to hand over the platter." seized evidence on a "silver See Court has stated that stant cases; ‘the [officer] ^[1991] zone [his] “judicially [instant] creat have the is rule ” safeguard (omitting Fourth additional designed to interest’ remedy ed through its citations)). rights generally the record indi- Amendment In this effect, personal rather than investigative thorough that it was deterrent cates ag party (rather right than col- constitutional investigators work Calandra, 414 States v. grieved.” United who conducted the with the officers lusion L.Ed.2d 561 94 S.Ct. searches) U.S. discovery which led them to accord, Raftery, (1974); custody which still guns were Cir.1976). 856-57 Angeles police. of the Los Ceccolini, 435 States also United of a con- any showing threshold Absent 268, 275, time, place, pur- or “nexus” nection costs, (1978) only (“Recognizing the subse- the searches and pose between substantial, of the exclu are often no appreciable there is quent prosecution, rule, ‘application we have said sionary the evi- suppressing purpose deterrent to those been restricted of the rule has Moreover, to this it is irrelevant dence.3 objectives are where remedial areas is seized inquiry served,’ efficaciously [citing most thought by the same or sovereign one utilized Therefore, Calandra].”). inquiry is sovereign. Lopez-Mar- See a different between the connection (Statements tinez, in made 725 F.2d at 476 proceeding is the instant searches and ad- federal officers were a 1974 arrest of the evidence suppression such in trial because the missible a 1982 federal in deterrence. appreciable result would the later 1982 agents in 1974 did not have Basinger, 60 F.3d v. See United States in- primary “zone of their (9th Cir.1995); States v. terest.”). because there is no Accordingly, (9th 471, 476 Lopez-Martinez, conducting the showing officers Cir.1984). pres- had the and traffic searches airport airport performed the The officers who pri- their proceeding ent within zone in the in- search and the search vehicle interest, court did not err mary the district anticipa- knowledge or stant case had no evidentiary hearing an refusing to hold prosecution subsequent of Medina’s on lawfulness of the searches. words, robbery. In other bank for armed the bank did not have III. zone of inter- their within F.2d at Lopez-Martinez, 725 est. See cross-appeal, con- of collusion be- suggestion There is no in im- that the court erred tends district conducted tween the officers who for three or posing concurrent sentences who subse- investigators searches and the under 18 U.S.C. more convictions guns. unclaimed quently located the 924(c)(1). agree We (“Here, as Basinger, at 1407 60 F.3d sentencing. court erred in the suggestion no Lopez-Martinez, ‘there is 924(c)(1) provides, relevant Section any ... of bad or collusion’ faith part: the 1991 and the in- officers involved in sufficiently challenged becomes inquiry under inquiry is similar to dissipate any resulting from the exception weak to taint to the "fruit the "attenuated basis” illegality.”); v. original Castro, United States poisonous rule. See tree” Perez (9th 1979) Smith, Cir. 606 F.2d United States (statements 1998) ("[T]he pa given defendant to border inquiry taint is more Cir. illegal agents by local analysis. following trol an arrest proximate That akin to a is, causation sufficiently attenuated "were not point, in the event of a direct at some even chain, purge taint of the them of the relationship the arrest and unbroken causal arrest”). search or seizure and beLween the unlawful 924(c)

Whoever, any concurrently run with non-section during and in relation rejected argument ... carries a sentences. We this of violence uses or crime Fontanilla, firearm, shall, punish- addition (9th Cir.1988), stated, for such crime of violence provided ment where we statute, for imprisonment ... sentenced to “Nothing legislative or its In the case of his sec- years.... five history, indicates one section 924 sentence conviction under this subsequent ond or run concurrently can be made to with an- subsection, be sen- person such shall other section 924 sentence.” Id. twenty imprisonment

tenced to AFFIRM the district court’s refusal Notwithstanding any other years.... evidentiary hearing to hold an on the sup- law, provision of the court shall not issues, pression imposition REVERSE the the sen- place probation suspend 924(c) sentences, of concurrent section convicted of a viola- any person tence of REMAND resentencing. subsection, tion of this nor shall under imprisonment imposed term of FLETCHER, Judge, dissenting: Circuit concurrently run this subsection affirming the district court’s denial of includ- any imprisonment other term of evidentiary hearing on the Fourth for the crime of vio- ing imposed issue, majority Amendment relies on a ... in which lence the firearm was “zone of interest” test that is un- or carried. faithful to interpreted The district court court, precedent conflict with from this require five-year statute to consecutive seriously misguided on its own terms. 924(c) sentence on the first convic section I agree, respectfully cannot and therefore single twenty-year tion and a consecutive dissent. subsequent” of all “second or sec sentence 924(c) words, convictions. In other I. interpreted the district court the statute to any third permit concurrent sentences for majority holds that The conviction under subsequent section legality court need not assessed the 924(c). reject interpretation be against of the two searches executed Medi- language requires cause the of the statute gained the evidence na order to admit twenty-year a consecu imposition from searches in Medina’s trial.1 those tive sentence for each “second or subse holding reading relies on a This quent” conviction. that “primary zone of interest” test con- Supreme flicts with clear Court 924(c) spe- plain language The of section notably Elkins v. United 364 most cifically prohibits concurrent sentences 206, 1437, 4 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1669 U.S. “notwithstanding any provision other (1960). Supreme the law.” The held that Court 924(c) indicated language of section interpret- Court 924(c) make Congress’s intent to section prohibit rule to ed the consecutively all enhancements run oth- in a federal criminal trial of admission terms, whether or federal. prison er state by during evidence obtained state officers Gonzales, See United States which, by a if conducted federal search S.Ct. officers, have violated the Fourth would 924(c) at only Amendment. argues

Medina that section case, offi- police that 1437. In that state prohibits sentences under section granted Medina’s motion to 1. The of the search on Medina's car is after state notes, seriously majority police suppress grounds doubt. As on the. against relating charges Medina state suspicion stop the car. lacked a reasonable gun dropped from the car were recovered that evidence the Court held for the a search warrant procured cers officers in the by state illegally to retrieve obtained in an effort home defendant’s investigation a state criminal n. course of Id. at 207 pictures. motion obscene subsequent federal civil used no ob- could be search revealed 1437. The 80 S.Ct. that a state The reasoned find tax case. did and but pictures, scene likely to be de- officer is to have law enforcement they believed paraphernalia seize by the exclusion illegal action wiretaps. Id. terred from making illegal been used proceedings, in all criminal to use the of evidence were unable state officials When further deterred material, likely to be obtained he is federal officers seized proceed- from civil excluding the evidence criminal brought the material are outside ings b'ecause such Id. against the defendant. Id. at interest.” fed- his “zone court determined because district Accordingly, the Court held 96 S.Ct. participate did not eral officers the evidence admissible. search, inquiry no need for an there was had been whether the state search into majority does not Although opinion at 80 S.Ct. 1437. lawful. Id. it, governing remains the Su cite Janis reversed, rejecting the Supreme Court the “zone of preme Court case on It held that “evi- platter doctrine.” “silver looking di Rather than interest” issue. during a by state officers dence obtained Janis, majority relies on two rectly to which, by federal offi- if conducted search that cite Janis but cases from our court cers, have violated the defendant’s would beyond See United recognition. distort it immunity from unreasonable searches Cir. Basinger, States v. Amendment is under the Fourth seizures 1995); Lopez-Martinez, United States v. timely inadmissible over the defendant’s (9th Cir.1984). cases, Those 725 F.2d 471 criminal trial.” Id. objection a federal turn, Raftery, relied on United States (9th Cir.1976), which F.2d 854 Raftery, Together, “con- decided before Janis. majority that Elkins concedes Basinger held government Lopez-Martinez, tinues to forbid the federal or fed illegally obtained state argument that another making search, subsequent therefore eral officers could sovereign conducted the provided the officers prosecutions, the methods which the ignore can have the subse Majority illegally who acted Opinion was conducted.” search on, however, within their quent prosecution federal majority goes at 6714. The Lopez- just argu- primary an “zone of interest.” See to credit a version of such 476; Martinez, Basinger, at ment. It holds that because searches of the “zone by F.3d at 1407. This extension at issue this case were conducted involving primary interest” test to cases officers with “no of state law enforcement inis direct prosecutions of sub- federal criminal knowledge anticipation or Medina’s By relying violation of Elkins and Janis. sequent the unconstitutional- prosecution,” Raftery, the ma Lopez-Martinez and ity of the is no bar to federal searches compounds our court’s Majori- jority this case government’s use of the evidence. at version of error. ty Opinion 6715. This ’ is at odds

“zone, primary of interest” test true, course, that Janis “zone of It is of only holding the clear with limit El- test does primary interest” subsequent Supreme prece- but with Court limitation, That rule to some extent. kins dent as well. however, ap- continuing Elkins’ assumes Janis to cases such as ours. plicability interest” test was The “zone of federal civil that the remoteness of found by Supreme first articulated Court Janis, state criminal inves- 96 tax from proceedings 428 U.S. States existing deter- “coupled with the tigations, 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 may “[t]he of the Castro held Government the denial of use by rence effected successfully illegal assert that the act crimi- not sovereign by either state or local officers and searching by officer was done which the nal trials with subsequently the statements tak- concerned,” applying the therefore justified not is Janis, in a prosecution, en are admissible federal in such instances. exclusionary rule is, by without concern as to the method which That 96 S.Ct. 3021. at ’ It they were obtained.” Id. is concerns that deterrence conclusion Janis Lopez-Martinez to see how difficult applying the did not warrant Basinger can be reconciled with Perez- relied federal civil tax rule to as latter faithful Castro. Inasmuch is of the exclu- application on the continued n Janis, intra-circuit con- to Elkins and this proceedings, criminal sionary rule Lopez- highlights flict the extent which from adher- federal. Far whether state or now, Basinger and, this Martinez Janis, Lo- Raftery, ing to our decisions — strayed Supreme case—have Court case Basinger, pez-Martinez, .this precedent. built on which Janis erode the foundation interest” test. “zone of majority apparently finds no conflict Af- holding between its and Perez-Castro. to correct our responsibility

We have finding “showing no of a connection or ter precedent. Supreme Court deviations from time, place, purpose ‘nexus’ between Janis ignored our circuit has The fact that subsequent prosecu- the searches many years and Elkins over course and.the case, majority cites Perez- tion” responsibility.2 not lessen this does example as an of a case where Castro so we can hear this case en banc should showing. Majority there was such a Basinger, and Lopez-Martinez, overrule Perez-Castro, Opinion at 1082 & n.3. how- extent conflict Raftery to the ever, showing turn on a specific Elkins. Janis and police activity local a connection between II. subsequent prosecution. and the Indeed, Perez-Castro noted no such con- majority opinion flout only Not does the Instead, in that the outcome case perpetuates nection. by the Elkins rule that the dictated intra-circuit conflict as well. United was ex- Perez-Castro, may not avoid the 606 F.2d 251 States “assertfing] that Cir.1979), clusionary simply by rule Lopez- before ease decided or local illegal act was done state Raftery but cited neither Martinez and Perez-Castro, at 253. them, held that evidence officers.” this court here, that rule apply If we were to to an search gained pursuant would have to challenges evidence Medina inadmissible a subse- local Thus, majority’s opin- suppressed. Perez- Citing trial. quent federal (1989). may "judges It be that opinion partially Today’s majority seems in body apply a of decisional law that exclusionary rule who must by a view that the formed made, late, they not themselves and which Supreme Court of have with the has lost favor change, may authority find it they lack final current Court are and that the views of the making tempting job as one of to view their from the views of the Elkins rather different correct, considerations, tempta- They predictions. should resist even if Court. Such prediction ... decision-making. ... undermines place The tion because have no in our over-emphasizing the role a the rule of law made it clear that "[i]f Court has Dorf, Pre- judges.” Michael C. application of individual precedent this Court has direct of Law, 42 UCLA L.Rev. diction and the Rule yet appears to rest on reasons in a of decisions, 651, exclusionary rule con- 715 rejected in some other line of by Supreme Court mandated tinues to be Appeals follow the case Court of should vitality controls, of on precedent. We must not drain it leaving Court the directly to this Supreme Court suspicion the current overruling its own decisions.” prerogative of did the differently about the rule than Quijas feels Rodriguez Ex de Shearson/American 1917, 484, 477, past of eras. Courts press, U.S. part by the independent imperative with Perez-Castro. also irreconcilable ion is omitted)). judicial integrity.” (quotation to re- of this case en banc hear We should principle simple: here is the courts intra-circuit conflict. solve must not countenance violations of the III. laws, “In Constitution: a of disregard impe- of Su- existence of the Government will be If we leave aside majority’s ap- scrupu rilled if it fails to observe the law preme lously. ... If the becomes a primary of the “zone of interest” Government plication lawbreaker, law; contempt it flawed on its own terms. breeds test is man a law unto every invites to become First, sophistry suggest it is sheer himself; anarchy.” it invites Olmstead v. law enforcement officers have no that state 48 S.Ct. conviction, court, in federal interest (Brandeis, J., 72 L.Ed. 944 dissent pursuing, par have suspects of been judiciary de ing). integrity of ticularly suspect pros where the cannot be pends ability protect against on its such in state court. As Justice Thomas ecuted exclusionary risks. The rule serves that Court, recently noted behalf of end. “[wjhere person conducting the search officer, not is a the officer’s focus is recognized court has Our exclusion- upon ensuring compliance parole con ary continuing importance rule’s as safe- for introduc obtaining ditions or guard judicial integrity: of proceedings, administrative deterrence, addition to the exclu- [I]n obtaining who upon convictions those sionary rule the vital serves function of Pennsylvania commit crimes.” Bd. of preserving judicial integrity.... Scott, Probation v. the police unreasonably [Where] vio- (1998) 2014, 2022, 141 (empha late[ ] the defendant’s fourth Amend- added). Thus, parole hearings, sis while rights, integrity ment of the courts proceedings, might like civil tax fall out implicated. Federal courts cannot [is] side state law enforcement officers’ zone countenance deliberate violation of basic interest, surely federal criminal rights. constitutional prosecutions do not. The mind is not C.I.R., (9th Adamson imagine strained to circumstances under Cir.1984); INS, see Gonzalez-Rivera v. officers, which state law enforcement real (9th Cir.1994) (quoting 1448-49 izing they against no state case Adamson); see also Matta-Ballesteros v. suspect but that a hoping federal case Henman, Cir.1990) might ultimately brought, per would (“the imperative maintaining judicial in hope form searches in the of obtain tegrity may play some role the exclu ing By evidence useful in a federal case. calculus”). sionary rule The admission of heeding imposed by not the limits Janis on evidence in criminal without test, the “zone of interest” our regard of the means encourages such behavior. which-that acquired compro evidence was Second, only pur- deterrence is integrity judiciary. mises pose exclusionary served rule. As Elkins to a emphasized, recognized, person rule As Elkins sub- imperative judicial jected also serves “the in- to an “it illegal search matters not tegrity.” right 364 U.S. at 80 S.Ct. whether his constitutional has been 1437; Newspapers Virgi- agent see Richmond invaded a federal a state nia, 2814, officer,” 448 U.S. 594 n. Constitution is flouted “[t]he S.Ct. (1980) (“[T]he in either equally 65 L.Ed.2d 973 case.” 364 U.S. prompted only by rule is the accused’s 1437. distinctions be- Institutional in vindicating rights, interest his own tween state and federal are cold comfort criminal facing, individual for an governmental lawlessness. We

born of pursuit that the long recognized satisfy

justice appearance “must States, v. United

justice.” Offutt L.Ed, 11, 14, 11, 99 done when we appear will

Justice teaching in

return to the Court’s

Elkins and Janis. Because today’s opin- straying from joins

ion a line of cases both of Elkins spirit and the

the letter

Janis, I respectfully dissent. DELGADO,

Jesus Garcia

Petitioner-Appellee, LEWIS, Deputy Warden; Attorney

Gail California,

General of State of

Respondents-Appellants.

No. 97-56162. Appeals, Court of

Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 1998.

Opinion Filed Feb. 23, 1999.

Opinion Withdrawn June

Filed June 34(a). Appellate panel appropriate to Federal Rule of Procedure 1. The finds this case argument pursuant submission without oral unknown.” The notes fense are America, UNITED STATES guilty he was that Casarez stated Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross- “pled guilty he be- the offense and that Appellant, jail get go out of cause he wanted back to work.” short, neither the statute under MEDINA, Felix Defendant- Nicholas was convicted Casarez-Bravo Appellant-Cross-Appellee. any proper judicially noticeable nor justify pertaining facts offense 97-50148, 97-50149. Nos. a “controlled substance of- inclusion as Appeals, Court of § 4B1.1. Because neither the fense” under Ninth Circuit. qualify predi- as 1986 nor 1988 convictions offenses, the district court erred cate Aug. Argued and Submitted a ca- determining Casarez-Bravo Sentencing criminal under the Guide- reer Filed June lines. Ill Because Casarez-Bravo object career being sentenced under the

Case Details

Case Name: United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Felix Nicholas Medina, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 22, 1999

Citation: 181 F.3d 1078

Docket Number: 97-50148, 97-50149

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.