⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “United States v. Lopez-Zamora”

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005-08-04 · Published · cited 0× · 141 F. App'x 601
MEMORANDUM * Jose Lopez-Zamora challenges his sentence. He argues that he must be resentenced because the district court erroneously believed the sentencing guidelines categorically forbid a district court from departing due to the minor nature of the underlying felony. He also argues that reversal is required because the district court applied the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. See United States v.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005-08-04 · Published · cited 0×
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 03-50304 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. CR-01-01918-JM JOSE LUIS LOPEZ-ZAMORA, Southern District Defendant-Appellant. of California,  San Diego ORDER
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003-04-11 · Published · cited 1× · 61 F. App'x 401
MEMORANDUM** Jose Luis Lopez-Zamora appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lopez contends that the district court erred when it enhanced his guideline score by 16 levels. He asserts that the government did not establish that his prior conviction for violating California Health & Safet
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002-02-25 · Published · cited 0× · 31 F. App'x 463
MEMORANDUM ** Gerardo Lopez-Zamora appeals his conviction by guilty plea to being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lopez-Zamora’s central contention in this appeal is that his prior deportation in 1990 was invalid because the IJ did not advise him to file a meritless appeal from the IJ’s decision in order to accumulate ti
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012-07-24 · Published · cited 0× · 685 F.3d 787; 2012 WL 3000658; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15201
RILEY, Chief Judge. Jorge Zamora-Lopez conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to 108 months imprisonment. Zamora-Lopez appeals the district court’s denial of his
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-10-07 · Published · cited 0× · 537 U.S. 848
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-10-07 · Published · cited 0× · 537 U.S. 848; 123 S. Ct. 188
537 U.S. 848 LOPEZ-ZAMORAv.UNITED STATES. No. 01-10533. Supreme Court of United States. October 7, 2002. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 2
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004-12-29 · Published · cited 2× · 392 F.3d 1087; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 27076; 2004 WL 2997967
BYBEE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. I am unable to join the majority opinion because, in my view, the 2001 amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines squarely address Lopez-Zamora’s situation. The district court did not have discretion to grant the downward departure Lopez-Zamora sought and thus did not err when it declined to grant it. Hence, I agree with the majority that the judgment should
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005-08-04 · Published · cited 1× · 418 F.3d 1004; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16038; 2005 WL 1876386
ORDER WITHDRAWING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING ORDER ORDER The opinion and concurring opinion filed December 29, 2004, and appearing at 392 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.2004), are withdrawn. They may not be cited by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit. A memorandum disposition shall be filed in their stead.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016-04-08 · Published · cited 1× · 645 F. App'x 66
SUMMARY ORDER Defendants Daniel Fernandez and Jose Betancourt appeal from convictions for conspiring to distribute at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii), 846. Fernandez, who stands convicted after a jury trial, argues on appeal that (1) the district court erred in denying him a mistrial, (2) the district court’s multiple conspiracy jury charge was erroneous, (3) there was a prejudicia
Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-10-07 · Published · cited 0× · 134 S. Ct. 217; 187 L. Ed. 2d 164; 82 U.S.L.W. 3185; 571 U.S. 892; 2013 WL 3283705; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 6125
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2014-11-07 · Published · cited 58× · 772 F.3d 1183; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22400
LUCERO, Circuit Judge. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach sought, on behalf of their respective states, that the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”). add language requiring documentary proof of citizenship to each *1188 state’s instructions on the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008-11-06 · Published · cited 0× · 317 F. App'x 622
MEMORANDUM ** Enrique Martinez-Zamora appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Martinez-Zamora contends that the district court erred by treating the Guidelines range as the pr
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008-11-06 · Published · cited 0× · 317 F. App'x 622
MEMORANDUM ** Enrique Martinez-Zamora appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Martinez-Zamora contends that the district court erred by treating the Guidelines range as the pr
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004-03-26 · Published · cited 0× · 97 F. App'x 305
ORDER Upon consideration of Kevin A. Barnes, et al.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003-04-29 · Published · cited 20× · 344 F.3d 1036; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8382; 2003 WL 21036431
344 F.3d 1036 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,v.Cesar GONZALES, aka Cougar; Hector Gabriel Lopez, aka Shaggy; Uriel Martinez, aka Duke; Cesar Juarez, aka Pelon; Gustavo Azcuenaga, aka Mono; Luis Delcid, aka Stranger; Ernest Guevara, aka Yogi; Russell Barboa, aka Chino; John Acosta, aka Lefty; Byron Zamora, aka Trigger;Oscar Villa, aka Wino; Richard Acosta, aka Shorty; Roger Preciado, aka Cartoon; Jaime Villa, aka Psycho; Marcos Mazz
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003-03-06 · Published · cited 0× · 61 F. App'x 690
LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Kevin Barnes et al. (Barnes) notify the court that the United States Court of Federal Claims has requested that this court dismiss “the entire matter on appeal, without prejudice, and remand to this court for the purpose of addressing all outstanding matters.” We treat Barnes’ notification as a motion to remand. The United States has not responded. On
Supreme Court of the United States · 2003-06-27 · Published · cited 0× · 539 U.S. 966
(Reported below: 61 Fed. Appx. 920); (61 Fed. Appx. 922); (67 Fed. Appx. 246); (61 Fed. Appx. 921); (61 Fed. Appx. 920); (61 Fed. Appx. 920); (61 Fed. Appx. 921); (61 Fed. Appx. 921); (67 Fed. Appx. 247); (61 Fed. Appx. 921); (61 Fed. Appx. 920); (61 Fed. Appx. 920);
Supreme Court of the United States · 2003-06-27 · Published · cited 0× · 539 U.S. 966
(Reported below: 61 Fed. Appx. 920); (61 Fed. Appx. 922); (67 Fed. Appx. 246); (61 Fed. Appx. 921); (61 Fed. Appx. 920); (61 Fed. Appx. 920); (61 Fed. Appx. 921); (61 Fed. Appx. 921); (67 Fed. Appx. 247); (61 Fed. Appx. 921); (61 Fed. Appx. 920); (61 Fed. Appx. 920);
Supreme Court of the United States · 2003-06-27 · Published · cited 0× · 539 U.S. 966; 123 S. Ct. 2657; 71 U.S.L.W. 3799; 156 L. Ed. 2d 669; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 5147
539 U.S. 966 Castillo-Perezv.United StatesDuran-Rivasv.United StatesGabarete-Guardadov.United StatesGuillen-Segurav.United StatesHernandez-Santiagov.United StatesIraheta-Barrera, aka Diaz-Hernandezv.United StatesJimenez-Aguilerav.United StatesLanza-Chanv.United StatesLopez-Guzmanv.United StatesLopez-Salasv.United StatesOrtiz-Zacar