Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Juan Saavedra-Martinez, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CR 03-455-PHX-EHC ORDER ON REMAND

On June 28, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court remanded this case to determine whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different if this Court had known that the sentencing guidelines were advisory. On October 11, 2006, this Court requested counsel for each of the parties to file a memorandum addressing whether the Defendant had to be present for "re-sentencing". See: U.S. v. Montgomery, 462 F.3d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir. 2006).1 Counsel agree in principle, that the Defendant's presence is not required for the Court on remand to determine whether

Decided August 29, 2006. Document 74 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cr-00455-EHC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

it would have imposed a different sentence if it had known the guidelines were advisory. In Montgomery (Id. p. 1069) the Court: ...explicitly restate[d] what Ameline requires: that, on Ameline remand, a district court must obtain, or at least solicit, the views of counsel in writing before deciding whether re-sentencing is appropriate. If the Court decides that it will not change its sentence, the case is closed. The Court now solicits, the views of counsel in writing, before deciding whether re-sentencing is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that counsel submit in writing, within ten days of the date of this Order, their view whether resentencing is appropriate. DATED this 8th day of November, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cr-00455-EHC Document 74 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 2 of 2