Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8687785
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Matsunaga
No. 8687785 · Decided July 2, 2008
No. 8687785·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 2, 2008
Citation
No. 8687785
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Sean Matsunaga appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Matsunaga contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on judge-found facts to increase his sentence. We conclude that the district court understood “the full scope of [its] discretion in a post -Booker world,” see United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006), and that Matsunaga has not raised any issues that are renewable, see United States v. Thornton, 511 F.3d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir.2008). 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 ** Sean Matsunaga appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Sean Matsunaga appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v.
02Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory.
03Matsunaga contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on judge-found facts to increase his sentence.
04We conclude that the district court understood “the full scope of [its] discretion in a post -Booker world,” see United States v.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Sean Matsunaga appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Matsunaga in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 2, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8687785 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.