United States v. Jaramillo, 080213 FED9, 12-50072

Docket Nº: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
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE HENRY JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-50072

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 2, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

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 reading

FREE SIGN UP