United States v. Jose Valencia-Mendoza , 517 F. App'x 590 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 29 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 No. 11-10616
    Plaintiff - Appellant,                  D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00408-
    LKK-1
    v.
    JOSE LUIS VALENCIA-MENDOZA,
    MEMORANDUM *
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 15, 2013 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge; O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit
    Judges.
    1.        The district judge erred by placing the burden of proof on the government to
    show that Valencia-Mendoza was ineligible for safety-valve relief. See United
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    States v. Mejia-Pimental, 
    477 F.3d 1100
    , 1104 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3553
    (f)(2), (5). Consequently, his finding that Valencia-Mendoza was safety-
    valve eligible was clearly erroneous. See Mejia-Pimental, 
    477 F.3d at 1103
    .
    2.    This case is ordered assigned to a new district judge on remand in light of
    the “unusual circumstances.” United States v. Arnett, 
    628 F.2d 1162
    , 1165 (9th
    Cir. 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district judge stated on the
    record that his “sentencing justice [was] deeply offended” by the sentencing
    disparity that would arise from imposition of the mandatory minimum and further
    indicated his desire not to be tasked with resentencing on remand. These
    statements suggest that (1) the district judge would “have substantial difficulty in
    putting out of his . . . mind previously-expressed views” regarding Valencia-
    Mendoza’s sentence; (2) “reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of
    justice”; and (3) “preserving the appearance of fairness” outweighs the minimal
    duplication of effort that will be necessary for a new judge to resentence Valencia-
    Mendoza. 
    Id.
    REVERSED and REMANDED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-10616

Citation Numbers: 517 F. App'x 590

Judges: Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Smith

Filed Date: 4/29/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023