United States v. Juan Carlos Rendon-Abundez, 59 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Juan Carlos Rendon-Abundez, 59 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Raul Valenzuela-Cervantes (ca9, 1995-09-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Raul Valenzuela-Cervantes
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
For the reasons set forth in United States v. Rendon-Abundez, 59 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir.1995), we remand to the district court for reconsideration of the motion in light of our opinions in Armstrong and United States v. Gomez-Lopez, 62 F.3d 304 (9th Cir.1995), and in accord with the instructions in Rendon-Abundez.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Juan Carlos RENDON-ABUNDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
94-50352.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 13, 1995.
59 F.3d 1001
Carlton F. Gunn and Oswald Parada, Deputy Federal Public Defenders, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellant., Warrington S. Parker, III and Jefferey M. Rawitz, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee.
Wallace, Kozinski, Rymer.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #40,241 of 633,719
Citer courts: E.D. California (1) · D. Hawaii (1)

Juan Carlos Rendon-Abundez appeals from his conviction following the district court’s denial of his request for discovery of government records to support his claim that[*1002] his prosecution for being a deported alien found in the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1826(b)(1) and (b)(2), was the result of impermissible selective prosecution on the basis of race. We remand.

Since the district court’s decision in this case, we decided United States v. Armstrong, 48 F.3d 1508 (9th Cir.1995) (en banc). We decline the invitation to determine whether the district court must, may, or may not grant discovery on the facts of this case following Armstrong, as we conclude that the issue is properly resolved as an initial matter by the district court. We therefore remand.

On remand, if the district court determines that discovery is not justified or, following appropriate proceedings, that the defendant has not made out a showing of selective prosecution so as to justify dismissal of the indictment, then the court shall enter a new final judgment of conviction. See Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94,111-112, 96 S.Ct. 1338, 47 L.Ed.2d 603 (1976); United States v. Ogbuehi, 18 F.3d 807, 811-12 (9th Cir.1994).If the district court concludes that Rendon-Abundez was a victim of selective prosecution, it shall vacate the judgment of conviction. Id.

REMANDED.