Previous Story
Petition for rehearing found frivolous
|
Posted on May 11 2012
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Reporter
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found frivolous a petition for rehearing filed by a woman who was convicted of possessing methamphetamine or “ice” with intent to distribute and for violating probation conditions.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that Julita Aldan Sablan’s appeal is a commonplace sentencing appeal that does not involve “a legal or factual issue of unique interest or substantial public importance.”
According to the Ninth Circuit judges in their order filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the NMI, Sablan’s generous below-guideline sentence was the result of having committed the same serious felony offense for which she was already on supervised release, not because of any miscalculation on the part of the district court.
“Counsels are expected to make proper use of petitions for rehearing, not file them just because they exist,” the Ninth Circuit judges pointed out.
Sablan was sentenced in November 2010 to 70 months in prison for possession of “ice” with intent to distribute and 15 months for violating supervised release conditions. The sentences are to be served consecutively for a total of 85 months (seven years and one month). It was Sablan’s third conviction.
Sablan, through counsel George Anthony Long, had appealed to the Ninth Circuit to reverse the order.
In affirming the sentence, the Ninth Circuit judges pointed out that her sentence is substantively reasonable.
In denying her petition for a rehearing, the Ninth Circuit judges said that contrary to Long’s assertion, the panel thoroughly considered all the issues presented in Sablan’s appeal. The Ninth Circuit judges said the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the briefs and the record.
“The panel’s choice of an unpublished disposition to resolve this appeal was dictated by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-2, not by an unawareness of the significance of this case to [Sablan],” the judges said.
The issues presented, the judges noted, do not merit a published opinion.
