The following excerpt is from United States v. McElmurry, 776 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2015):
3 See United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940, 943 (9th Cir.2008) (Although we normally review de novo claims of double jeopardy violations, we review issues, such as the present one, not properly raised before the district court for plain error.) (internal citation omitted).
3 See United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940, 943 (9th Cir.2008) (Although we normally review de novo claims of double jeopardy violations, we review issues, such as the present one, not properly raised before the district court for plain error.) (internal citation omitted).
4 See United States v. Schales, 546 F.3d 965, 97781 (9th Cir.2008) ; United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir.2008) ; Davenport, 519 F.3d at 94348.
4 See United States v. Schales, 546 F.3d 965, 97781 (9th Cir.2008) ; United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir.2008) ; Davenport, 519 F.3d at 94348.
5 See Schales, 546 F.3d at 980 ([T]he only remedy consistent with the congressional intent is for the [d]istrict [c]ourt, where the sentencing responsibility resides, to exercise its discretion to vacate one of the underlying convictions.) (quoting Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) ) (alteration in original).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.