United States v. Frank Fernandez, United States of Am. v. Roy Gavaldon, AKA Spider, United States of Am. v. David Gonzales-Contreras, AKA David Contreras-Gonzalez, United States of Am. v. Dominick Shewmaker Gonzales, AKA Solo, AKA Dominick Gonzales, United States of Am. v. Jimmy Sanchez, AKA Seal D, AKA Smokey, United States of Am. v. Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Frank Fernandez, United States of Am. v. Roy Gavaldon, AKA Spider, United States of Am. v. David Gonzales-Contreras, AKA David Contreras-Gonzalez, United States of Am. v. Dominick Shewmaker Gonzales, AKA Solo, AKA Dominick Gonzales, United States of Am. v. Jimmy Sanchez, AKA Seal D, AKA Smokey, United States of Am. v. Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
55 citation events (55 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Monica Rodriguez (ca9, 2022-08-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Monica Rodriguez
9th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2004), modified, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Charles Heard
9th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1241 (9th Cir. 2004) (limiting instructions important factor for determining prejudice related to severance), as modified, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005); Johnson, 297 F.3d at 856 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Christopher Lischewski
9th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1243 (9th Cir. 2004), modified, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed Cited "see" Boggs v. Shinn (2×)
D. Ariz. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 558 (1977)7; see 13 United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1240 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejecting Sixth 14 Amendment claim when there was no showing of purposeful interference with defendants’ 15 attorney-client relationship, “that any defense strategy was actually communicated to the 16 government[,]” or “that any of the evidence presented at trial had been tainted by the 17 alleged intrusion”), modified by, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Mark Ellison
9th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2004), modified, 425 F.3d 1248 , 1249 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 1993).
cited Cited "see" Victor Velasquez v. City of Santa Clara
9th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2004), modified, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Gerard Smith
9th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2004), modified, 425 F.3d 1248 , 1249 (9th Cir. 2005); cf. United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747, 757 (9th Cir. 2010). (2) Challenges by Craig, Long, and Leavins We likewise reject Craig, Long, and Leavins’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of ruses used by the FBI and LASD. 14 First, the district court properly prevented the Joint Appellants from questioning FBI agents about their use of ruses on the grounds that it was irrelevant, would waste time, and would confuse the jury.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Winston Bontrager
9th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1256-57 (9th Cir.2004), amended in non-relevant part, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir.2005).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Ceballos
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1256-57 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that the cumulative effect of all errors must be examined for harmlessness), modified, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. K.T.A.
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1219 (9th Cir.2004) (noting government was not required to plead interstate commerce nexus in drug trafficking context because the interstate nexus was not an element of the offense), modified by 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 1964 , 161 L.Ed.2d 790 , — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 2278 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1073 ,- — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 2286 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1077 (2005).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Antonio Simmons
4th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
As several of our sister circuits have aptly reasoned, “[t]he existence of an internal dispute does not signal the end of an 38 enterprise, particularly if the objective of, and reason for, the dispute,” like here, “is control of the enterprise.” United States v. Orena, 32 F.3d 704, 710 (2d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 , 1222–23 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that despite the presence of two warring factions, a single conspiracy existed, because the factions “still identified themselves as members” of the gang, “invoked the reputation and power of th…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Antonio Simmons
4th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
As several of our sister circuits have aptly reasoned, “[t]he existence of an internal dispute does not signal the end of an 32 enterprise, particularly if the objective of, and reason for, the dispute,” like here, “is control of the enterprise.” United States v. Orena, 32 F.3d 704, 710 (2d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 , 1222–23 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that despite the presence of two warring factions, a single conspiracy existed, because the factions “still identified themselves as members” of the gang, “invoked the reputation and power of th…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Susan Rodriguez
9th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
We have long adhered to the principle that “[a] series of conspiracies and failed attempts constitutes a ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (5), even if no racketeering offense is completed.” United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1208, 1216 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); see also United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1259 (9th Cir. 2004), modified, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005) (“It is a well-established principle of RICO law that a murder conspiracy can be a predicate racketeering act under § 1962(c), and that predicate racketeering acts t…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Pinnacle Monterey LLC
N.D. Cal. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Tille, 729 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1230 (9th Cir.2004) modified, 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir.2005); 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Frank Fernandez, United States of America v. Roy Gavaldon, AKA Spider, United States of America v. David Gonzales-Contreras, AKA David Contreras-Gonzalez, United States of America v. Dominick Shewmaker Gonzales, AKA Solo, AKA Dominick Gonzales, United States of America v. Jimmy Sanchez, AKA Seal D, AKA Smokey, United States of America v. Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez
01-50088.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 19, 2005.
425 F.3d 1248
Published

425 F.3d 1248

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Frank FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roy Gavaldon, aka Spider, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
David Gonzales-Contreras, aka David Contreras-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dominick Shewmaker Gonzales, aka Solo, aka Dominick Gonzales, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jimmy Sanchez, aka Seal D, aka Smokey, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50082.

No. 01-50088.

No. 01-50126.

No. 01-50162.

No. 01-50373.

No. 01-50513.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 19, 2005.

Daniel Levin, Janet C. Hudson, Esq., and Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Esq., Miriam A. Krinsky, AUSA, Susan L. Barna, AUSA, Jack P. Dicanio, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kenneth M. Stern, Esq., Law Offices Kenneth M. Stern, Woodland Hills, CA, Darlene M. Ricker, Attorney at Law, Malibu, CA, Philip Deitch, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Cara Devito, Esq., West Hills, CA, Karyn H. Bucur, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, Verna J. Wefald, Esq., Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before B. FLETCHER, CANBY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

The following defendant-appellees have requested remands to the district court for it to consider modification of their sentences: Roy Gavaldon, David Gonzales-Contreras, and Dominick Shewmaker Gonzales.

2

Defendant-appellant Fernandez has responded that he does not want a remand for resentencing. His sentence stands affirmed.

3

The affirmance of Defendant-appellant Schoenberg Sanchez's sentence stands.

4

The reversal of Defendant-appellant Sanchez's sentence stands; the mandate has issued in his case.

5

In our opinion we vacated the sentences of David Gonzales-Contreras and Dominick Shewmaker Gonzales. We amend our opinion to this extent: We remand to the district court to consider whether to resentence, but do not vacate their sentences.

6

We remand Roy Gavaldon's sentence to the district court to consider whether to resentence.

7

The mandate shall issue forthwith on the opinion 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.2004) as modified by this order.