OCT 08 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. CR-00-01007-AHM-01
Ninth Circuit Court No. 03-50558
"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) Matz states he read the Castro decision very carefully. But omitts knowledge of the above rule, following
the guidence he claims to seek.
"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..." YOU ROT IN PRISON UNDER CONFLICTED COUNSEL, FOISTED
ON YOU BY MY BUDDY ALEX KOZINSKI, WHILE WE ROAM FREE AT LIBERTY TO DENY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AT WILL. AND WAIT. AND WAIT. SINCE I AM APPOINTED FOR LIFE.
NOV 17 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. CR 01-1081 AHM
Ninth Circuit Court No. 03-50383
These enhancements [by 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.
NOV 17 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. CR 01-1081 AHM
Ninth Circuit Court No. 03-50388
"These enhancements [by 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.
COVER UP :
A.K.A. IF HE HAD ONLY KNOWN
JUN 15 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. CR-01-00238-AHM
Ninth Circuit Court Nos. 03-50014, 03-50017
"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.
But then again, I'm officially nutzzzzzz, until certified un-nutzzzzzz in a competent court of the law. So I am waiting on the law, and the certificate required by the law.
But I'm no expert.(.pdf) Anyone see ours, yet? He has our certificate required by the law and I need it to be officially un-nutzzzzzz. And that's a fact!
