USA v. Aguila-Montes De Oca
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| GUILLERMO AGUILA-MONTES DE OCA |
| THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ASIAN LAW CAUCUS, IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER, IMMIGRATION LAW CLINIC OF THE SCHOOL OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS, THE FLORENCE IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS PROJECT, THE NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAW FOUNDATION and WASHINGTON DEFENDER ASSOCIATION |
| 05-50170 |
| March 11, 2005 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| USA v. Aguila-Montes De Oca |
| USA v. Aguila-Montes De Oca |
| USA v. Aguila-Montes De Oca |
 United States v. De Oca
|
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
9023162573
Filed opinion (ALEX KOZINSKI, PAMELA ANN RYMER, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RONALD M. GOULD, MARSHA S. BERZON, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, JAY S. BYBEE, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and N. RANDY SMITH) Per Curiam Opinion and Opinion authored by Judge Bybee, Concurrence by Judge Berzon , Concurrence/Dissent by Judge Rawlinson PER CURIAM- The district court s sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the original three-judge panel for consideration of the remaining issues raised on appeal.. BYBEE, Circuit Judge: Accordingly, we vacate the district court s sentence and remand to the original three-judge panel for consideration of the remaining issues Aguila raised on appeal. VACATED AND REMANDED. [7853331]
|
|
Filing
920100203
Opinion
|
|
Filing
920090120
Opinion
|
|
Filing
920080428
Opinion
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
