"Blakely issues exist with regard to the loss and restitution calculations which were based in part on facts neither found by a jury nor
admitted by the appellants. We therefore vacate the appellants’ sentences and remand for reconsideration in light of United States v. Ameline,
No. 02-30326, (9th Cir. July 21, 2004) (applying Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) to the United States Sentencing Guidelines).
See United States v. Castro, No. 03-50444 (9th Cir. Aug27, 2004) (per curiam)." SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED.
In file 2004 11 8.pdf, (Nov 8, 2004) [ONE MONTH AFTER THE ABOVE RULING] Judge A. Howard Matz states to Killercop that he read the Castro decision very carefully. But omits knowledge of the above rule of the law, following
the guidance he claims to seek. Listen in:
"I've read the Castro decision carefully; and of course, that decision reflects what is the fundamental background context to this motion, which is that "we're" waiting...for Supreme Court guidance on the
aftermath of Blakely and Ameline. How soon that guidance will be provided and what it
will be, I have no desire to speculate about, but facing that confusion..."
SIDEBAR::
"SO YOU CAN ROT IN PRISON UNDER CONFLICTED COUNSEL, FOISTED
ON YOU BY MY BUDDY AND GOOD FRIEND CHIEF JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI, WHILE HE AND I, AND GARY, ROAM FREE AT LIBERTY TO DENY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AT WILL. ON FACTS NOT FOUND BY THE JURY!
These enhancements [by Judge A. Howard Matz] violated the rule [of law] that sentence enhancements can be based only on facts, proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as announced in United States v. Ameline, 376 F.3d 967, 980 (9th Cir. 2004).
See also Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Absent these questioned enhancements, the sentencing ranges
would be substantially less. SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED.
"These enhancements [by Judge A. Howard Matz] violated the rule [of law] that sentence enhancements can be based only on facts, proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as announced in United States v. Ameline, 376 F.3d 967, 980 (9th Cir. 2004).
See also Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Absent these questioned enhancements, the sentencing ranges
would be substantially less." SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED.
"We cannot determine from the record whether the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence as to either Defendant
[if it had known] that the Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory, as the Supreme Court held in Booker.
In fulfilling this mandate, the district court may hold such hearings and enter such orders as it determines to be necessary, including,
without limitation, modifying or vacating its previous sentence.
HE KNEW, THEY KNEW, YET HE WAS ALLOWED TO HAND DOWN SUBSTANTIAL PRISON SENTENCES, ILLEGALLY. ALL THE WHILE CLAIMING CONFUSION AND IGNORANCE.
WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ COULD HAND OUT MANY "SUBSTANTAIL ILLEGAL SENTENCES," AND DID JUST THAT!! SO WHY IS HE STILL SITTING ON THE BENCH?
