Case ID: f-appx_176/html/0854-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Javier MARTINEZ-ESPINOZA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-50652.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 10, 2006.
    
    Filed April 19, 2006.
    Carol A. Trujillo, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff—Appellee.
    Elizabeth M. Barros, Federal Defenders Of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant—Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI, RYMER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellee has filed an unopposed motion for summary vacation of the district court’s judgment and remand for a new trial or entry of a guilty plea based on the parties’ charge bargain. Appellee admits that, in light of this court’s recent decision in United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913 (9th Cir.2005), the expert testimony admitted and arguments advanced at trial on behalf of the prosecution regarding the issue of derivative citizenship constituted reversible error.

Accordingly, appellee’s motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial or the entry of a guilty plea based on the parties’ charge bargain.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.