Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8626152
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Soto-Castillo
No. 8626152 · Decided November 15, 2006
No. 8626152·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 15, 2006
Citation
No. 8626152
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Jose Soto-Castillo appeals the revocation of supervised release following his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . Soto-Castillo contends that the supervised release revocation proceedings violate United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and his Sixth Amendment rights because imposition of the maximum penalty depends on a fact not found by a jury. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huertas-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006) holding that the revocation of supervised release and the resulting punishment is part of the original sentence and requires no impermissible judicial fact-finding, and that because revocation and the imposition of additional punishment are discretionary, neither violate Booker nor the Sixth Amendment. 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 ** Jose Soto-Castillo appeals the revocation of supervised release following his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Jose Soto-Castillo appeals the revocation of supervised release following his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.
02Soto-Castillo contends that the supervised release revocation proceedings violate United States v.
03738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and his Sixth Amendment rights because imposition of the maximum penalty depends on a fact not found by a jury.
04Huertas-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006) holding that the revocation of supervised release and the resulting punishment is part of the original sentence and requires no impermissible judicial fact-finding, and that because revocation
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Jose Soto-Castillo appeals the revocation of supervised release following his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Soto-Castillo in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 15, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8626152 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.