Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8647304
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Espinoza
No. 8647304 · Decided January 24, 2008
No. 8647304·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
January 24, 2008
Citation
No. 8647304
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Christopher Espinoza appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to possess marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Espinoza contends that the district court erred by failing to analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors and by imposing a sentence that was greater than necessary. We conclude that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and that the resulting sentence is not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597-98 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Christopher Espinoza appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute m
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Christopher Espinoza appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute m
02Espinoza contends that the district court erred by failing to analyze the 18 U.S.C.
03§ 3553 (a) factors and by imposing a sentence that was greater than necessary.
04We conclude that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and that the resulting sentence is not unreasonable.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Christopher Espinoza appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute m
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Espinoza in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on January 24, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8647304 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.