Cases

ROBERT C. BRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on defendant Robert Arellano's motion to suppress the intercepted calls and their fruits (Doc. 25), and Mr. Arellano's motion to suppress the statements of another individual, Anthony Gaines, from excerpts of the recorded calls (Doc. 61). The Court denies the motion to suppress the intercepted calls, but grants in part the motion to suppress Mr. Gaines's s

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Moisés Arellano-Robles has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S, 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Arellano-Robles has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant por

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before F.D. MITCHELL, J.A. FISCHER, K.M. MCDONALD Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MANUEL L. ARELLANO, JR. HOSPITAL CORPSMAN SECOND CLASS (E-5), U.S. NAVY NMCCA 201

PER CURIAM: David J. Joffe, counsel for Fedencio J. Arellano in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of

PER CURIAM: * Cesar Arellano-Canchola (Arellano) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. Arellano argues that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and because the Guideline failed to take into account the characteristics of the rob*529

MEMORANDUM ** Juan Arellano-Ochoa appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Arellano-Ochoa contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider all of the sentenci

MEMORANDUM ** Juan Arellano-Ochoa appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Arellano-Ochoa contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider all of the sentenci

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Arellano-Garcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.200

MEMORANDUM** 1. Under United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 88, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004), “a defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.”

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in Part I of the majority’s opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II. The majority remands this appeal for resentencing because “the district court did not expressly acknowledge that it understood it had the authority to depart.”1 We are to remand f

MEMORANDUM *** Appellant Jose Arellano-Arredondo appeals his sentence for illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, with an enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) in light of a previous conviction for an aggravated felony. We affirm. I. Appellant argues that the district court erred in its finding that he was subject

PER CURIAM: * Angel Silvestre Arellano-Rios pleaded guilty to being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after deportation, having previously been convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court sentenced him to serve 87 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Arella

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 04-30545 v.  D.C. No. JOSE LUIS ARELLANO-OCHOA, CR-04-00072-JDS Defendant-Appellant.  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 05-30328 Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

MEMORANDUM *** Defendant Luis Alonso Arellano challenges his sentence for armed bank robbery and conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery. Specifically, he argues that *533the district court erred when it declined to reduce his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because of Defendant’s allegedly minor role in the offense. We review for clea

MEMORANDUM** Adrian Arellano-Zavala appeals his 189-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to import and distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841, 846, 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm. Arellano-Zavala contends that the district court exred by denying a two-level downward a

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Arellano-Saucedo appeals his conviction by guilty plea and sentence for one *547count of illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Arellano-Saucedo’ attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Arellano-Saucedo did not

MEMORANDUM ** Because appellant Eufracio Arellano-Sandoval (“Sandoval”) was convicted of a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a continuing offense, which commences with the illegal re-entry and is completed upon being found, United States v. Ruelas-Arreguin, 219 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1024, 121 S.Ct. 594, 148 L.Ed.2d 508 (2000), and because there was sufficient evid

MEMORANDUM * Defendant Archimides Arellano-Garcia appeals the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence and subsequent conviction. Following denial of the motion, Arellano-Garcia entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute heroin under Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, reserving his right to appeal the adverse ruling. He now appeals the di

149 F.3d 1194 U.S.v.Arellano* NO. 97-2420 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. June 26, 1998 Appeal From: N.D.Fla. ,No.96000574CRRH 1 Affirmed in part, Reversed in part.

127 F.3d 39 U.S.v.Arellano* NO. 96-5162 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Sept 25, 1997 Appeal From: S.D.Fla. ,No.9600250CRJAL 1 Affirmed.