Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-10147/USCOURTS-ca9-14-10147-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Doe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-10147

D.C. No.

3:95-cr-00319- MMC-7

ORDER

Filed October 21, 2016

Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw,

and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed on August 9, 2016, appearing at 2016

WL 4191523, is hereby amended as follows:

At slip op. page 8 n.3, change “We also reject

Doe’s argument that judicial estoppel prevents

a court from taking inconsistent positions;

judicial estoppel is a doctrine that applies to

the parties, not the court. New Hampshire v.

Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750–51 (2001). In any

event, we disagree with Doe’s premise that

the court acted inconsistently.” to “We also

 Case: 14-10147, 10/21/2016, ID: 10168548, DktEntry: 61, Page 1 of 3
2 UNITED STATES V. DOE

reject Doe’s arguments that judicial estoppel

prevents a court from taking inconsistent

positions, and that his due process rights were

violated. First, judicial estoppel is a doctrine

that applies to the parties, not the court. New

Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750–51

(2001). In any event, we disagree with Doe’s

premise that the court acted inconsistently. 

Second, a trial court violates a defendant’s

due process rights only “by relying upon

materially false or unreliable information at

sentencing.” United States v. Hanna, 49 F.3d

572, 577 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States

v. Kerr, 876 F.2d 1440, 1445 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

Not only was Doe not “at sentencing,” but

also, the trial court relied on facts to which the

parties had stipulated, including Doe’s sworn

plea agreement admitting solicitation of

murder, as well as a government document

showing Doe later backed away from that

admission. Though some of the information

was conflicting, it was not “materially false or

unreliable information.” See id. at 578

(finding due process violation where

sentencing court relied upon the

“uncorroborated and unreliable” allegations of

a co-defendant who “presumably wanted

revenge” on defendant).”

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the

petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en

banc. 

 Case: 14-10147, 10/21/2016, ID: 10168548, DktEntry: 61, Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES V. DOE 3

The full court has been advised of the petition for

rehearing and rehearing en banc and no judge has requested

a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App.

P. 35. 

The petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing

en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for en banc or

panel rehearing shall be permitted.

 Case: 14-10147, 10/21/2016, ID: 10168548, DktEntry: 61, Page 3 of 3