Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report

Federal Judiciary

: California Appellate Report

U.S. v. Hahn (9th Cir. - March 4, 2009)

By Shaun Martin

I agree with the per curiam opinion here. Even if notice that the judge is considering X is required by the rule, and no such notice is given, that's not fatal if the parties fully brief the issues notwithstanding the absence of such notice.

I also agree with Chief Judge Kozinski's succinct concurrence. If the rule requires notice, but no notice is given, you don't sentence someone to a shorter sentence than you think is appropriate. Rather, you provide notice and grant a continuance. (I don't know if I'd use the term "must" as Alex does, since there may be exceptions to this rule, but I agree that this is the procedure that normally should be employed.)

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on March 06, 2009 (boomark / email).