United States v. Priscilla Finau, 438 F. App'x 613 (9th Cir. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Priscilla Finau, 438 F. App'x 613 (9th Cir. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“arizona law prohibits an action based on the promissory estoppel theory of liability if there is an express, written contract on the same subject matter.”
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Argyros v. Island Storage & Marine LLC
D. Ariz. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
arizona law prohibits an action based on the promissory estoppel theory of liability if there is an express, written contract on the same subject matter.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Meldrum v. Arizona Board of Regents
D. Ariz. · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bowman v. 8 Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 438 Fed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Truck v. Teixidor
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
But "[t]here can be no implied contract where there is an express contract between the parties in reference to the same subject matter." Chanay v. Chittenden, 115 Ariz. 32, 35 (1977); see also Bowman v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 438 F. App'x 613 , 615 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Arizona law prohibits an action based on the promissory estoppel theory 3 The court noted that the affidavit on which Patisserie relied conflicted with the affiant's prior deposition testimony and that the asserted promise was insufficiently definite to support a promissory estoppel claim. 11 TRUCK v. TEIXIDOR, et al.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Priscilla Marilyn FINAU, Defendant-Appellant
10-30232.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 20, 2011.
438 F. App'x 613
Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Jane Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Canby, O'Scannlain, Fisher.
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 79%
Citer courts: D. Arizona (1)

MEMORANDUM **

Priscilla Marilyn Finau appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A) & (B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Finau contends that the district court erred in denying her a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. On appeal, Finau argues for the first time that her role should have been compared to hypothetical other “likely participants” in the conspiracy, rather than just to the role of her co-defendant. Even if this argument were not waived, Finau’s speculation about other possible participants, without providing any evidentiary support, fails to meet her burden of proving that she is entitled to a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2010).

Finau also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence, six months below the bottom of the Guidelines range, is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.