United States v. Enrique Cruz-Ochoa
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Enrique CRUZ-OCHOA, Appellant
Opinion
JUDGMENT The above-entitled ease is set for oral argument as the third case on Tuesday, March 12,1996. It is hereby ORDERED:
1) The case be stricken from the calendar and dismissed.
2) Our review of the sentencing transcript and record before us leads us to conclude that the district court erred as a matter of law by incorrectly believing that it could not depart downward from the guide *326 lines on the basis of defendant’s waiver and consent to administrative deportation upon the filing of a joint motion by the parties for a two-level downward departure at sentencing on defendant’s plea of guilty to illegal reentry.
3) The sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing, so that the district court may consider whether departure is warranted. Whether a downward departure should be granted lies within the sound discretion of the district court. See U.S. v. Whitetail, 956 F.2d 857 (8th Cir.1992).
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding “the district court erred as a matter of law by incorrectly believing that it could not depart downward from the guidelines on the basis of defendant’s waiver and consent to administrative deportation upon the filing of a joint motion by the parties”)
-
(vacating and remanding case for resentencing when the district court erred as a matter of law by incorrectly believing it did not have authority to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines on the basis of defendant's waiver and consent to administrative deportation)
Cited by 17 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.