Opinion
No. 14-10268
09-13-2022
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monico DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Gene D. Vorobyov, Law Office of Gene Vorobyov, San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellant. Susan B. Gray and Ross D. Mazer, Assistant United States Attorneys; Matthew M. Yelovich, Chief, Appellate Section, Criminal Division; Stephanie M. Hinds, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Steven G. Kalar, Federal Public Defender; Todd M. Borden, Assistant Federal Public Defender; Office of the Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit.
Gene D. Vorobyov, Law Office of Gene Vorobyov, San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellant.
Susan B. Gray and Ross D. Mazer, Assistant United States Attorneys; Matthew M. Yelovich, Chief, Appellate Section, Criminal Division; Stephanie M. Hinds, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven G. Kalar, Federal Public Defender; Todd M. Borden, Assistant Federal Public Defender; Office of the Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit.
Before: Barry G. Silverman and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges, and Michael M. Anello, District Judge.
The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
AMENDED ORDER
ORDER
The government's opposed motion to reinstate portions of the panel's opinion (Docket Entry No. 156) is granted to the following extent:
The decision entered by this court in this matter, reported at 954 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2020), was vacated by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Dominguez v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S.Ct. 2857, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2022). Accordingly, we now REVERSE the district court's judgment on Counts Four and Ten. We AFFIRM on all remaining counts for the reasons explained in our opinion reported at 954 F.3d 1251. We REMAND to the district court for resentencing consistent with United States v. Taylor , 596 U.S. ––––, 142 S.Ct. 2015, 213 L.Ed.2d 349 (2022).
Appellant's motion for an order setting a supplemental briefing schedule (Docket Entry No. 151) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
Amended Order