United States v. Jaramillo, 080213 FED9, 12-50072
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE HENRY JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: ALARC|
|Case Date:||August 02, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 24, 2013 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 8:07-cr-00036-AG.
George Henry Jaramillo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the $50, 000 fine imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for willful filing of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jaramillo contends that the district court's imposition of the $50, 000 fine was vindictive and therefore violates his right to due process. We review de novo a claim that the imposition of a sentence after a successful appeal violates a defendant's right to due process. See United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 234 F.3d 483, 489 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). Jaramillo's contention fails because there is no presumption of vindictiveness when there is no net increase in punishment. See United States v. Bay, 820 F.2d 1511, 1513 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, Jaramillo has not shown that the court was motivated by vindictiveness...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP