FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8626892
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Haylock

No. 8626892 · Decided December 12, 2006
No. 8626892 · Ninth Circuit · 2006 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 12, 2006
Citation
No. 8626892
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Desmond Haylock appeals from the sentence imposed upon him following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States following a deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm and remand. Haylock contends that this Court must reverse his sentence because the district court erred by failing to explain why it chose a sentence of 77 months rather than some other sentence, such as 72 months. However, a district court is not required to explain why it did not choose other potential sentences. United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995 (9th Cir.2006). Haylock further contends that the district court treated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as presumptively binding. However, this contention is belied by the record. In addition, Haylock contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2) is unconstitutional because it raises the statutory maximum sentence from 2 years to 20 years when a judge, rather than a jury, finds that the defendant’s removal was subsequent to the commission of an aggravated felony. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006). Haylock challenges two of his conditions of supervised release. First, he contends that the district court imposed a condition of supervised release that impermissibly permits the probation officer to *628 decide how many drug tests he must take during his supervised release. We conclude that, even assuming there was error, the imposition of the drug test condition was not plain error. See United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d at 996 . Second, Haylock contends that the reporting condition of his supervised release violates his Fifth Amendment rights. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir.2006). We remand the case to the district court with instructions that it replace the reference in the judgment to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a)(b)(2) with a reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). AFFIRMED; REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Desmond Haylock appeals from the sentence imposed upon him following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States following a deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Desmond Haylock appeals from the sentence imposed upon him following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States following a deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Haylock in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 12, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8626892 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →