# United States v. Contreras

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 2, 2010 · 593 F.3d 1135

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856857

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Katie Sue CONTRERAS, Seal F La Gorda, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 2, 2010
- **Citations:** 593 F.3d 1135; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2172; 2010 WL 348004
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tashima
- **Judges:** Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, A. Wallace Tashima, Sidney R. Thomas, M. Margaret McKeown, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Carlos T. Bea, Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges
- **Cited by:** 83 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856857

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a three-judge panel cannot overrule prior decisions, even if those decisions failed to address arguments regarding the effect of intervening authority
- holding that a three-judge panel lacked authority to overrule decisions that failed to recognize an intervening amendment to a sentencing guideline
- reversing a three-judge panel for overruling binding circuit precedent that was not clearly irreconcilable with intervening higher authority.

## Opinion text

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment and all of the en banc court’s opinion, except for the second sentence of the first paragraph, and write briefly to explain my position.
This case was taken en banc on the issue of whether the three-judge panel overstepped its authority in holding that United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1990), had been overruled by the 1993 amendment of application note 1 of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. See United States v. Contreras, 581 F.3d 1163, 1164, 1168-69 (9th Cir.2009) (“Contreras I ”). The three-judge panel’s mode of analysis is set forth in Contreras I, id. at 1167-68. By vacating that portion of Contreras I, although adopting the remainder of the three-judge panel’s opinion, the en banc court has disapproved of that mode of analysis. Although the reasons for its disapproval are unexpressed, presumably they are bottomed on the en banc court’s reading of circuit precedent, particularly Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).
I continue to abide by the three-judge panel’s reading and application of circuit precedent in the circumstances of this case and adhere to that portion of my opinion in Contreras I. With that caveat, I join in the court’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856857. Public record. Not legal advice.