Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8628478
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Cantrell
No. 8628478 · Decided February 16, 2007
No. 8628478·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
February 16, 2007
Citation
No. 8628478
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
ORDER ** We previously remanded this case for the district court to comply with the procedures set forth in our en banc decision in United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). On remand, although the district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, it failed to solicit the views of counsel before making this determination. We recently held that “Ameline requires, at a minimum, that the district court obtain, or at least call for, the views of counsel in writing before deciding whether re-sentencing is necessary.” United States v. Montgomery, 462 F.3d 1067, 1070 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we must remand for the district court to follow Montgomery’s directive. REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
ORDER ** We previously remanded this case for the district court to comply with the procedures set forth in our en banc decision in United States v.
Key Points
01ORDER ** We previously remanded this case for the district court to comply with the procedures set forth in our en banc decision in United States v.
02On remand, although the district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, it failed to solicit the views of counsel before making this determination.
03We recently held that “Ameline requires, at a minimum, that the district court obtain, or at least call for, the views of counsel in writing before deciding whether re-sentencing is necessary.” United States v.
04Accordingly, we must remand for the district court to follow Montgomery’s directive.
Frequently Asked Questions
ORDER ** We previously remanded this case for the district court to comply with the procedures set forth in our en banc decision in United States v.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Cantrell in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 16, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8628478 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.