Opinion ID: 793728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: enter an order deferring the imposition of sentence;

Text: B. sentence the defendant and enter an order suspending in whole or in part the execution of the sentence; C. or commit the convicted person, if convicted of a felony and not committed for diagnostic purposes within the twelve-month period directly preceding that conviction, to the department of corrections for an indeterminate period not to exceed sixty days for purposes of diagnosis, with direction that a court be given a report when the diagnosis is complete as to what disposition appears best when the interest of the public and the individual are evaluated.). 2 See United States v. Laskie, 258 F.3d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.2001). 3 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) 4 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) 5 Padilla v. State, 90 N.M. 664, 568 P.2d 190 (1970). 6 Id. at 192 (emphasis added). 7 Whenever the period of deferment expires, the defendant is relieved of any obligations imposed on him by the order of the court and has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime, the court shall enter a dismissal of the criminal charges. New Mexico Revised Statutes Annotated § 31-20-9 8 State v. Herbstman, 126 N.M. 683, 974 P.2d 177, 180 (App.1998). 9 State v. Lopez, 128 N.M. 450, 993 P.2d 767, 770 (App.1999). 10 State v. Brothers, 133 N.M. 36, 59 P.3d 1268, 1271 (App.2002). 11 Padilla v. State, 90 N.M. 664, 568 P.2d 190, 192 (1970). 12 We see no reason to doubt that the Supreme Court of New Mexico would reach the same conclusions these intermediate appellate court decisions did See Arizona Elec. Power Co-op., Inc. v. Berkeley, 59 F.3d 988, 991 (9th Cir.1995) (in the absence of a decision by the state's highest court, a federal court must predict how that court would resolve an issue by looking to the decisions of that state's intermediate appellate courts). 13 New Mexico Statute § 30-7-16 (1978); State v. Lopez, 128 N.M. 450, 993 P.2d 767, 770 (App. 1999). 14 Id. at 769. 15 United States v. Nix, 438 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.2006). 16 16 U.S.C. § 668(a) 17 Id., 18 Id. (internal citations omitted). 19 United States v. Herron, 45 F.3d 340, 343 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Erwin, 902 F.2d 510, 512-13 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 859, 111 S.Ct. 161, 112 L.Ed.2d 127 (1990)). 20 United States v. Herron, 45 F.3d 340, 342 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Dahms, 938 F.2d 131, 133 (9th Cir.1991)). 21 N.M.Rev.Stat. § 31-13-1 22 N.M. Stat. § 30-7-16 (1978) 23 Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 315, 118 S.Ct. 2007, 141 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998) (quoting Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 120, 103 S.Ct. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983)). 24 United States v. Andaverde, 64 F.3d 1305 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 United States v. Meeks, 987 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1993). 26 Id. at 578. 27 United States v. Thomas, 991 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1993). 28 Id. at 215. 29 United States v. Dahms, 938 F.2d 131 (9th Cir. 1991). 30 Id. at 133 (following the Sixth Circuit's rule in United States v. Cassidy, 899 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1990)). 31 See e.g., United States v. Cassidy, 899 F.2d 543 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. Thomas, 991 F.2d 206 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Metzger, 3 F.3d 756 (4th Cir.1993); McGrath v. United States, 60 F.3d 1005 (2nd Cir.1995); cf. United States v. Ramos, 961 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir.1992). 32 United States v. Meeks, 987 F.2d 575, 578 (9th Cir.1993). 33 Id. 34 United States v. Metzger, 3 F.3d 756, 759 (4th Cir. 1993). 35 N.M.Rev.Stat. §§ 31-13-1, 38-5-1 36 Rule 11(a)(2) (With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty ... reserving the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pre-trial motion.) 37 See United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944 (9th Cir.2004) (reviewing, on the merits, the denial of a motion to suppress evidence that was reserved in a conditional guilty plea). 38 Our review is for abuse of discretion United States v. Lynch, 367 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th Cir.2004). 39 The district court ruled that the Court will give a cautionary instruction as to any statements made by the confidential informant on the tape. They clearly are not evidence and cannot be used as any form of evidence and can only provide context to the statement of the defendant. 40 Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2) 41 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) 42 Id. 43 United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).