Cases

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Sherman Barro appeals from a judgment entered on July 22, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, /.), convicting him, after a jury trial, of importing cocaine into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), and of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We assume the parties’ familiarity with

MEMORANDUM ** Berner Alfredo Barro appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 93-month sentence imposed for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Barro has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

JUDGMENT MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge: Having received and reviewed defendant’s response to the April 25, 1997 order of this Court to comply with the April 18,1996 remand order of this Court, and having reviewed the Department of Commerce’s order in Bricks from Mexico; Amended Revocation of the Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 F

JUDGMENT MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge: Having received and reviewed defendant’s response to the April 25, 1997 order of this Court to comply with the April 18,1996 remand order of this Court, and having reviewed the Department of Commerce’s order in Bricks from Mexico; Amended Revocation of the Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 Fed

Background Musgrave, Judge: In a complaint filed at the outset of this action, plaintiff challenges several aspects of a final administrative review by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of an outstanding affirmative countervailing duty determination and order covering imports into the United States of bricks from Mexico.1 Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend its

*710BACKGROUND MusgRAVE, Judge: In a complaint filed at the outset of this action, plaintiff challenges several aspects of a final administrative review by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of an outstanding affirmative countervailing duty determination and order covering imports into the United States of bricks from Mexico.1

ORDER THOMAS, Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. Judge Owens did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.<

OPINION AND ORDER AIDA M. DELGADO-COLÓN, Chief Judge. On February 26, 2014, defendant Carlos Barros-Villahermosa (“defendant”) was charged in a two-count indictment with (1) false personation of an U.S. officer or employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912, and (2) making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. ECF No. 3. I. The Pending Matter Cu

OPINION AND ORDER AIDA M. DELGADO-COLÓN, Chief Judge. On February 26, 2014, defendant Carlos Barros-Villahermosa (“defendant”) was charged in a two-count indictment with one count of falsely impersonating an officer or employee of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912, and one count of making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. ECF No. 3. I. The Pen

MEMORANDUM ** Ricardo Aramando Marroquin appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Marroquin contends that the district court failed to consider whether the sentence imposed was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We are not persuaded

MEMORANDUM ** Ricardo Aramando Marroquin appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Marroquin contends that the district court failed to consider whether the sentence imposed was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We are not persuaded

642 F.3d 56 (2011) Carlos BARROS-VILLAHERMOSA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES; United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Customs and Border Protection; Marcelino Borges; Mirella Couto; Dennis Meccanego; Jorge Muñiz; Jorge Pagán-Albino; Maria Palmer; Reynaldo Sánchez-Ruíz; Roberto Vizcarrondo, Defendants, Appellees, Jesús M. Torres-De León; José Muñiz, Defendants. No. 09-2614. <

John Richard Barro appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of guilty to possessing a pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health Saf. Code, § 11383, subd. (c)(1); count 1) and to conspiracy to commit that crime (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1); count 3)1 and his admission to having suffered a strike under the "Three Strikes" la

MEMORANDUM * The facts and the procedural posture of the case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here. *620Oscar Mendoza was convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and now seeks to collaterally attack his deportation, claiming that due process errors and ineffective assistance of counsel deprived him of access to r

*427MEMORANDUM ** Appellant Eduardo Mendoza-Vazquez (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction on two counts of alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii), claiming the trial court committed reversible error in (1) refusing to strike a special allegation from the indictment, (2) admitting evidence of his p

536 F.3d 990 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben FLORES-VILLAR, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-50445. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 17, 2008. Filed August 6, 2008. *993 Elizabeth M. Barros, Assistant Federal Public Defender, San Diego, CA, for the

MEMORANDUM * Petitioner Jose Manuel Juarez appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to do so, an issue which we review de novo. See United States v. Garrett, 253 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir.2001). “A district court’s jurisdiction to revoke supervised release can be extended beyond the term of supervisi

MEMORANDUM** On November 13, 2000, Appellant Donald Johnson was found in violation of supervised release, and sentenced to 29-months imprisonment to be followed by 30 months of supervised release. On May 10, 2004, Johnson was again found in violation of supervised release, and sentenced to a term of 8-months’ incarceration, followed by 23 months of supervised release. He now appeals both revocations of sup

ORDER Defendant-Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file a response to Government’s motion is GRANTED. The court has considered Defendant-Appellant’s response as well as the Government’s reply. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is GRANTED, and this appeal is REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT for consideration of whether vacatur is appropriate.