U.S. v. Cruz-Mendoza, CRUZ-MENDOZ
Decision Date | 31 December 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 97-15918,CRUZ-MENDOZ,D,97-15918 |
Parties | 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 41 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcosefendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before: SCHROEDER, FARRIS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The opinion filed on June 23, 1998, 147 F.3d 1069, is amended by deleting that portion of the opinion commencing with the first complete paragraph, right-hand column, 147 F.3d at 1074 (slip op. at 6383), commencing with second line from bottom of page, and continuing to the end of the opinion, 147 F.3d at 1075 (slip op. at 8385), and substituting in its place the following:
To clarify how these cases should be dealt with, we recently adopted Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1, which provides, in part, as follows:
If the district court denies a certificate of appealability in part, the court of appeals will not consider uncertified issues unless the petitioner first seeks, and the court of appeals grants, broader certification. Petitioners desiring broader certification must file, in the court of appeals, a separate motion for broader certification, along with a statement of reasons why a certificate should be granted as to any issue(s) within thirty-five days of the district court's entry of its order denying a certificate of appealability. Respondent may file an opposition within thirty-five days of the date petitioner's motion is served....
CONCLUSION
Cruz has not shown prejudice on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and his claim that the district court misapplied the Guidelines is meritless. Since no COA was issued on it, we do not reach the merits of Cruz's downward departure claim.
AFFIRMED.
With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Schroeder and Tashima have voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judge Farris so recommends.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Valerio v. Crawford
...Cruz-Mendoza, 147 F.3d 1069, 1074-75 (9th Cir.1998) (Cruz-Mendoza I), amended and superseded in part by United States v. Cruz-Mendoza, 163 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir.1998) (Cruz-Mendoza II). Our Circuit Rule 22-1 sets forth procedural requirements for appellants seeking to expand a partially-denied......
-
Lizarraga-Lopez v. U.S.
...issuing a certificate. E.g., United States v. Cruz-Mendoza, 147 F.3d 1069, 1074 n. 8 (9th Cir.1998), modified on other grounds, 163 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir.1998). Prior to the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which implemented section 2253, a person could only rec......
-
U.S. v. Davis
...at 431 (1997). 14. See generally United States v. Cruz-Mendoza, 147 F.3d 1069, 1072-73 (9th Cir.1998), amended on other grounds, 163 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir.1998) (concluding that the amendment omitting the conjunctive language and adding the disjunctive language was substantive, not merely clar......
-
Furman v. Wood
...assistance claims, without the necessity of Furman's moving to have us certify them. See Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1; see also United States v. Cruz-Mendoza, 163 F.3d 1149, amending 147 F.3d 1069 (9th 3. Prosecutorial Misconduct Furman argues that several comments of the prosecutor amounted to ......