Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8623291
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Chavez
No. 8623291 · Decided July 26, 2006
No. 8623291·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 26, 2006
Citation
No. 8623291
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Chavez’s argument that the district court should have found contested facts at sentencing beyond a reasonable doubt is foreclosed by United States v. Kilby, 443 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2006), where we held that “district courts should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard.” Chavez does not argue that he qualifies for the narrow exception contemplated by United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.2005), which recognized that “ ‘[w]hen a sentencing factor has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction,’ the government may have to satisfy a ‘clear and convincing’ standard.” Id. at 642 (quoting United States v. Hopper, 177 F.3d 824, 833 (9th Cir.1999)). Nor, on this record, could he. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Chavez’s argument that the district court should have found contested facts at sentencing beyond a reasonable doubt is foreclosed by United States v.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Chavez’s argument that the district court should have found contested facts at sentencing beyond a reasonable doubt is foreclosed by United States v.
02Kilby, 443 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2006), where we held that “district courts should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard.” Chavez does not argue that he qualifies for the narrow exc
03Dare, 425 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.2005), which recognized that “ ‘[w]hen a sentencing factor has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction,’ the government may have to satisfy a ‘clear and convinci
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Chavez’s argument that the district court should have found contested facts at sentencing beyond a reasonable doubt is foreclosed by United States v.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Chavez in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 26, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8623291 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.