SMITH

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• McCULLOUGH v. Singletary, 967 F.2d 530 (11th Cir. 1992)
  …ereafter filed a report and recommendation recommending that the petition be dismissed. Relying on Baldosar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980), and United States v. Williams, 891 F. 2d 212 (9th Cir.1989), cert, denied, 494 U.S. 1037, 110 S.Ct. 1496, 108 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990), the magistrate judge found that the enhancement of McCullough’s sentence based on his juvenile convictions did not violate his right to due process. McCullough filed objections to the report, reiterating his…
• United States v. Smith, 982 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1992)
  …of Review We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Howard, 894 F. 2d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Williams, 891 F. 2d 212, 214 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1037, 110 S.Ct. 1496, 108 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990). III.Mootness Before considering the merits of this appeal, we must address the question of whether this case is moot. Although neither party has raised this issue, we are obligated to determine whether we h…
• United States v. Carrillo, 991 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1993)
  …e sentence he received was indeterminate and not an adult sentence. II A challenge to the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Williams, 891 F. 2d 212, 214 (9th Cir.1989) (Williams), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1037, 110 S.Ct. 1496, 108 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990). In United States v. Anderson, 942 F. 2d 606 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc) {Anderson), we established the following framework for interpreting the Guidelines and the accompanying commentary: (1) courts should alw…