Cases

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Cesar Garcia-Hernandez presents an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment. Accordingly, the Government’s m

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 10-1913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. CIRO LOPEZ GARCIA Defendant, Appellant. No. 10-1914 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MARCO GARC

659 F.3d 108 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant, Appellant. No. 10-2146. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard September 13, 2011. Decided October 12, 2011. *109 Michael J. Iacopino, with whom Brennan Caron Lenehan & Iacopino was on brief, for appella

569 F.3d 1100 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Javier GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-50190. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted February 10, 2009.[*] Filed June 25, 2009. *1101 Devin J. Burstein, San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Gareia-Hernandez 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). Gareia-Hernandez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Gareia-Hernandez 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). Gareia-Hernandez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

530 F.3d 657 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Julio GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Nos. 07-2310, 07-2541. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: March 12, 2008. Filed: July 7, 2008. *659 Aaron D. Hamrock, argued, West Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.

550 F.Supp.2d 1228 (2008) UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. Oscar Javier GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant. No. 07-CR-02383-L. United States District Court, S.D. California. March 18, 2008. *1231 U.S. Attorney CR, U.S. Attorneys Office Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff. ORDER FOLLOWING TRIAL

PER CURIAM: * Juan Garcia-Hernandez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty of illegally reentering the United States after deportation. He contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Garcia’s sentence is within a properly calculated advisory guideline range and is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo,

PER CURIAM: * Jose Rene Garcia-Hernandez (Garcia) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Garcia argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release and that thi

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Garcia-Hernandez appeals his conviction and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in viola*654tion of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here. Garcia-Hernandez argues that the district

MEMORANDUM ** Rodrigo Garcia-Hernandez appeals from the 49-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we remand. Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed w

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jay Jesus Garcia-Hernandez has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Garcia-Hernandez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave

755 F.Supp. 232 (1991) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ramon GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant. No. 90-30003. United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division. January 30, 1991. Robert J. Eggers, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, Ill., for plaintiff. Jay Elmore, Springfield, Ill., for defendant. OPINION RICHARD MILLS, D

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4504 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 46 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-4185 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOSE DOMINGO ORDONEZ-ZOMETA, a/k/a Felon, Defendant – Appella

ORDER CAMPBELL, District Judge. This case is before the court on the defendants’ motion to suppress evidence and statements. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ronald N. Boyce pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A hearing was held on the motion to suppress- and memoranda were filed by the parties. On November 20,1996, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation in which he

703 F.2d 556 *U. S.v.Garcia-Hernandez 82-2400 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit 3/30/83 1 S.D.Tex. AFFIRMED 2 ---------------

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

BENTON, Circuit Judge. Gabriel Lazaro Garcia-Hernandez was sentenced as an armed career criminal. He moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , invoking Johnson v. United States , --- U.S. ----,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50228 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 3:19-cr-04373-GPC-1 CLEMENTE HERNANDEZ- GARCIA, ORDER AND Defendant-Appellant. AMENDED OPINION