The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an en banc opinion in USA v. W.R. GRACE, No. 06-30192, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Raymond C. Fisher, Carlos T. Bea and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

FISHER, Circuit Judge:
We granted en banc review of this appeal by the government, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731, to resolve two questions. First, does a United States Attorney’s simple certi. . .

HAWKINS, Circuit Judge, with whom PREGERSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, join, concurring as to Part III, and concurring in the judgment:
We face two closely related issues, both dealing with the ability of district judges to manage complex criminal trials. One is whether a district judge may order the government to provide a final witness list prior to the beginning of trial. This one the Opinion gets absolutely right, holding that the interests of trial continuity outweigh any interest in withholding . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. CARUTO, No. 07-50041, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Susan P. Graber and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Claudia Wilken, District Judge.

WILKEN, District Judge:
Elide Caruto was convicted of one count of importation of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 and one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. She argues that her trial was fundamentally unfair because the district court allowed the prosecution to emphasize in its closing argument omissions in the brief post-arrest statement she gave before invoking her Miranda rights. This closing argument, she contends, improp. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. MENDOZA, No. 06-50447, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Thomas G. Nelson, Richard A. Paez, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge:
Paul Mendoza appeals his convictions on two counts of subscribing to a false income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Mendoza contends that the eight-year delay between his indictment and his arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. He further contends that the district court plainly erred when it ordered restitution during sentencing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse. . . .

The opinion and concurrence filed March 3, 2008, appearing at 518 F.3d 706, are hereby withdrawn. The superceding opinion and concurrence will be filed concurrently with this order. The pending petition for panel rehearing is denied as moot. OPINION T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge:
Paul Mendoza appeals his convictions on two counts of subscribing to a false income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Mendoza contends that the eight-year delay between his indictment and his arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. He further contends that the district court plainly erred when it ordered restitution during sentencing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse. . . .

BYBEE, Circuit Judge, concurring:
Appellant Paul Mendoza was found guilty by a jury of his peers of filing false tax returns for failing to report over $285,000 in funds he embezzled from his employer. Today we are forced to overturn his conviction. I join the majority opinion because I believe we dutifully applied Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 674 (1992); I write separately because the facts before us demonstrate how Doggett requires a presumption unsupported by the record. Because the government did not make even a single effort to notify Mendoza of his indictment, we must find the government responsible for the constitutionally impermissible eight-and-a-half-year delay between Mendoza’s indictment and arrest. Nevertheless, we Because we find that Mendoza’s Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right was violated, we do not need to address his arguments related to sentencing. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. PETE, No. 06-10390, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of John R. Gibson, Marsha S. Berzon, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

BERZON, Circuit Judge:
Branden Pete was convicted, after a jury trial, of second degree murder on an Indian reservation, two counts of felony murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. Pete was sentenced to four concurrent terms of life imprisonment. He contends that the Speedy Trial Act (”the STA” or “the Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., was violated and the indictment against him should therefore have been dismissed. We do not agree, and so affirm. I. Pete was arrested on tribal charges on August 23, 2002. On . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. CHAPMAN, No. 06-10316, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:
The district court dismissed an indictment against Daniel Chapman, Sean Flanagan, and Herbert Jacobi (collectively “Defendants”) after the prosecution admitted that it had failed to meet its obligations to disclose over 650 pages of documents to the defense. We must decide whether the government’s appeal of the dismissal is precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3731, whether the dismissal was proper, and whether Defendants are entitled to fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. No. 105-119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3006A Note). We conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the government’s appeal under the circumstances presented here, and we affirm as to both the dismissal of the indictment and the denial of fees and costs. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 8, 2003, a grand jury in the District of Nevada returned a sixty-four-count indictment charging that Defendants, along with Shawn Hackman and James Farrell (who both pled guilty before trial), concocted a complex securities trading scheme known as a “box job,” where a small number . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. TAPIA-ROMERO, No. 05-50121, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Robert R. Beezer, Thomas G. Nelson, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge:
In this opinion, we hold that the district court correctly concluded that the cost to society of imprisoning a defendant is not a factor to be considered in determining the appropriate length of a defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3582(a). Accordingly, we affirm. Background Felipe Daniel Tapia-Romero pled guilty to being an illegal alien found in the United States after deportation. At sentencing, defense counsel argued that the district court should consider imposing a shorter term of imprisonment due to the cost of imprisoning Tapia-Romero. Defense counsel argued that this cost was a factor the court had to consider under 18 . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. STOTERAU, No. 07-50124, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of J. Clifford Wallace, Ronald M. Gould, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
Joseph Stoterau pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). In this appeal, he challenges several aspects of his sentence, including the length of his term of imprisonment and several special conditions of his supervised release. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. I In December 2005, Joseph Stoterau, then 26, met John Doe at a gay and lesbian support group. Doe was 14 at the time. In July 2006, Stoterau introduced Doe to the website “rentboy.com.” Stoterau explained that the site was an opportunity for the two of them to make some money. Doe agreed to allow Stoterau to take nude pictures of him. Stoterau then uploaded the photos to rentboy.com and included his own cell phone number as Doe’s contact information. When rentboy.com customers would call, Stoterau would pretend to be Doe. Stoterau would tell customers that he (Doe) would engage in whatever type of sex they wanted for $250 per hour. Stoterau would then get in contact with Doe and provide him with the customers’ details. On at least two occasions Stoterau drove Doe to locations where customers paid Doe $250 for various sex acts. After these meetings, Doe would give part of the $250 to Stoterau. Stoterau would give Doe alcoholic beverages before each meeting. On August 4, 2006, officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement executed a search warrant at Stoterau’s residence. During the search, officers seized Stoterau’s personal computer. A subsequent search of the hard drive revealed images depicting child pornography, that is, visual depictions . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. MEDINA, No. 05-30477, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Raymond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
The district court dismissed Martin Medina’s indictment without prejudice after determining that the excessive pretrial delays violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 31613174. On appeal, Medina disputes the district court’s speedy trial calculations and its decision to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. I On March 3, 2004, Martin Medina, Jr. and four codefendants were charged in a 12-count indictment. Medina was charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine and four counts of distribution of methamphetamine. Of the five charged co-defendants, Medina was the only one to stand trial on the charges. Two of Medina’s co-defendants pleaded guilty on September 13, 2004, and one pleaded guilty on September 20, 2004. The fourth co-defendant fled while released on bond. Between March 3, 2004, and the first day of trial on June 6, 2005, there were several delays, two of which are at issue in this case. The first delay began on March 31, 2004, when one of Medina’s co-defendants, Contreras, filed three pretrial motions: a motion to sever counts and defendants, a motion to suppress statements, and a motion to suppress evidence. Contreras requested oral argument for each of these motions. The district court denied these motions as moot after Contreras pleaded guilty on September 20, 2004. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. AGUILA-MONTES DE OCA, No. 05-50170, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of David R. Thompson, Thomas G. Nelson, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Guillermo Aguila-Montes De Oca (”Aguila-Montes”) appeals the sentence imposed upon him for attempting to reenter the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Aguila-Montes challenges the district court’s sixteen-level sentence enhancement resulting from the court’s determination that his prior conviction for first degree residential burglary, in violation of section 459 of the California Penal Code, constituted a crime of violence under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (”Guidelines”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We hold that AguilaMontes’s prior California burglary conviction constituted a crime of violence under the Guidelines, and affirm his sentence with the sixteen-level sentence enhancement. I. Background Aguila-Montes, a Mexican citizen, queued up at the San Ysidro Point of Entry on July 5, 2004. Customs and Border Protection officers arrested him after verifying by computer that he was a deported alien. The government charged him with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by attempting to reenter the United States. A jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison and two years of supervised release. During sentencing, the district court concluded that AguilaMontes had previously been convicted of a crime of violence. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. MARA, No. 07-30102, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Robert R. Beezer, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
Johnny Lee Mara appeals his 77-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Mara argues that pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines (”U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”) § 3E1.1(a), he was entitled to a two-level downward adjustment of his sentence because he accepted responsibility for his crime. The question we address is whether unrelated criminal conduct following a guilty plea may be considered in evaluating a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. Mara pled guilty in exchange for the government’s recommendation that he be given a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range. The government reserved the right to with. . .