EXAMPLES:::::
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)
[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!
WAIT. AND WAIT. I DON'T CARE TO EVEN READ WHAT YOU WROTE, BEFORE MAKING A RULING, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 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.
NOV 17 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. CR 01-1081 AHM
Ninth Circuit Court No. 03-50388
"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.
COVERED 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.
IF HE HAD ONLY KNOWN???
HE KNEW, THEY KNEW, YET HE WAS ALLOWED TO HAND DOWN SUBSTANTIAL PRISON SENTENCES, ILLEGALLY.
ALL THE WHILE CLAIMING CONFUSION AND IGNORANCE.
YES, BUT BY WHO? AND HOW MANY OTHERS DID HE ILLEGALLY SENTENCE?
AND WHY IS HE ALLOWED TO REMAIN?
ANSWER: ASK HIS GOOD BUDDIES! MATZ WON'T TELL ME, 'CAUSE IT'S A SECRET!
HE AND HIS FRIENDS LIKE SECRETS.
SO I WILL SHARE ONE OR MORE WITH HIM AND WITH YOU. WAIVE YOUR FLAG, BUT NEVER YOUR RIGHTS. AND I AM NOT TALKING ENTITLEMENTS.
NOBODY IN MY COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO WAIVE MY RIGHTS WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SHOW ON A RECORD OF THE LAW THEIR AUTHORITY OVER MY OBJECTIONS.
AM I CLEAR?
