Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marcos Alejandro GONZALEZ FLORES, Defendant-Appellee.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcos Alejandro Gonzalez Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
The memorandum disposition filed on January 9, 2020 is amended as follows:
On page 4, delete:
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. On page 4, add:
4. We reject Gonzalez's argument that the district court abused its discretion by ruling on Gonzalez's motion to suppress without holding an evidentiary hearing. “An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress need be held only when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist.” United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000). Gonzalez's motion did not meet that standard.
The amended memorandum is filed concurrently with this order.
The petition for rehearing (Dkt. 72) is denied. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM *
The government appeals the district court's imposition of a sentence below the mandatory minimum. Marcos Alejandro Gonzalez Flores (“Gonzalez”) cross-appeals the district court's denial of his suppression motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review de novo the legality of a criminal sentence․” United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 48 F.3d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 1995). We also review de novo the denial of a suppression motion and review for clear error the factual findings underlying such a denial. United States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir. 2009). We vacate the sentence, affirm the denial of the motion to suppress, and remand to the district court for resentencing.
1. As an initial matter, we reject Gonzalez's challenge to the propriety of the government's appeal. First, the appellate waiver provision in the parties’ plea agreement does not bar the appeal of an unlawful sentence. United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 2007) (“An appeal waiver will not apply if ․ the sentence violates the law.”). Second, we are satisfied the appeal was properly authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b) by the Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345(a)(1), 3346(a)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 0.137(b). Finally, the government timely filed its notice of appeal on July 26, 2017; the government's filing of a second, identical notice of appeal on August 1, 2017, after the district court's clerk's office requested the first notice be refiled under the correct “event” code, does not render the appeal untimely. Cf. United States v. Arevalo, 408 F.3d 1233, 1237−39 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding an appeal was untimely where seven months had elapsed between appellant's voluntary dismissal of the appeal and his attempt to reinstate it); Williams v. United States, 553 F.2d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 1977) (where ten months elapsed between the same).
2. As to the merits of the government's appeal, the district court erred in imposing a sentence that disregarded the mandatory consecutive penalty. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to offenses that carry mandatory minimum sentences of five years each, which must run consecutively. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(D)(ii). The district court sentenced Gonzalez to 72- and 60-month terms to run concurrently. That was error. See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2011) (“It is axiomatic that a statutory minimum sentence is mandatory.”). We vacate the unlawful sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.
3. Finally, we determine that the district court did not err in denying Gonzalez's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of his business. Police obtained a warrant to search “Suite 114” of a multi-unit commercial complex. While executing the warrant, they discovered a hidden three-by-three-foot hole leading from Suite 114 into a second unit (not within the scope of the warrant), which they erroneously believed was part of Suite 114. We conclude that, under the circumstances, it was “objectively understandable and reasonable” for the officers to believe this second space was part of Suite 114 and thus to search it. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 88, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987).
4. We reject Gonzalez's argument that the district court abused its discretion by ruling on Gonzalez's motion to suppress without holding an evidentiary hearing. “An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress need be held only when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist.” United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000). Gonzalez's motion did not meet that standard.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-50269, No. 17-50270
Decided: June 30, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)