Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8647382
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Speelman
No. 8647382 · Decided January 28, 2008
No. 8647382·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 28, 2008
Citation
No. 8647382
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Jeffrey Gordon Speelman appeals from the district court’s order upon limited remand pursuant to United States v. Arneline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Speelman’s contention that the district court’s failure to hold a resentencing hearing to allow him to present additional evi *621 dence violated his due process rights is foreclosed. See United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 687-88 (9th Cir.2007) (recognizing that, in the context of an Ameline remand, due process does not require that a defendant be given the opportunity to present new evidence unless a new sentence is to be imposed). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Jeffrey Gordon Speelman appeals from the district court’s order upon limited remand pursuant to United States v.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Jeffrey Gordon Speelman appeals from the district court’s order upon limited remand pursuant to United States v.
02Arneline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), concluding that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory.
03Speelman’s contention that the district court’s failure to hold a resentencing hearing to allow him to present additional evi *621 dence violated his due process rights is foreclosed.
04Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 687-88 (9th Cir.2007) (recognizing that, in the context of an Ameline remand, due process does not require that a defendant be given the opportunity to present new evidence unless a new sentence is to be imposed).
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Jeffrey Gordon Speelman appeals from the district court’s order upon limited remand pursuant to United States v.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Speelman in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on January 28, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8647382 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.