In United States v. Davis, case no. 06-10527 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2008), we have a case where the district court either didn’t realize its limitations or just didn’t read the mandate right. Whatever the cause, this case provides a succinct and to-the-point reminder of the point made in the title of this post. The Ninth originally remanded with instructions to strike a conviction and sentence on count four and for the court to determine if it would have imposed the same sentence if it had known that the sentencing guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. The district court struck the conviction and sentence on count four, declared it would…
-
-
A “Cautionary Tale” on Post-Judgment Interest when Court of Appeals Directs Entry of Money Judgment
It’s always frustrating when you have to litigate over issues stemming from a court’s failure to do something that it should have done or even was required to do. Just ask the Oakland Raiders, who saw their new trial order reversed because the trial judge’s order did not satisfy the Code of Civil Procedure. The issue also arises in California courts where the trial court fails to rule on objections to evidence in the context of a summary judgment motion. The consequences of such failure have been discussed on a number of blogs recently, and The Appellate Practitioner has an excellent post regarding the Supreme Court’s recent grant of review…