United States v. Jackson
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
The district court properly decided that it had no jurisdiction to hear Jackson’s motion to withdraw her plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e). A limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline
Under certain circumstances, we would have jurisdiction to review a defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea, even though the district court did not.
Jackson’s argument that the district court improperly applied United States v. Ameline
There was no violation of Jackson’s allocution rights. A defendant awarded a limited Ameline remand is not entitled to allocution unless the district court makes the determination that re-sentencing is required.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005).
. United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 2006).
. United States v. Jackson, 147 Fed.Appx. 690 (9th Cir. 2005).
. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 2006).
. See United States v. King, 257 F.3d 1013, 1024 (9th Cir. 2001).
. See United States v. Radmall, 340 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2003).
. 432 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2006).
. E.g., United States v. Littlejohn, 224 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. 2000).
. 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005).
. United. States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2007).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- United States v. Shirley Ann JACKSON
- Status
- Published