Court Opinion

ID: 9499664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:54:16.060389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:38.840611
License: Public Domain

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge,
with whom BERZON, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring:
I file this separate concurrence only to express my disagreement with Judge O’Scannlain’s criticism of United States v. Montgomery, 462 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir.2006). Because the “Ameline remand” is entirely judge-fashioned, there are no preexisting rules which govern the procedures to be followed on such a remand. Montgomery’s interpretation of Ameline’s requirement imposes no more than that notice and an opportunity to be heard be given— due process-like requirements — which we have imposed in a wide variety of contexts. See, e.g., Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that due process requires that an attorney be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before sanctions can be imposed against him). Given the consequences at stake, I do not believe that requiring “sentencing judges to notify counsel” places an undue “burden” upon them or, in any manner, “misapprehends the proper role of the judge.”