# United States v. Francisco Gasca-Ruiz

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 5, 2017 · 852 F.3d 1167

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873941

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier GASCA-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 5, 2017
- **Citations:** 852 F.3d 1167; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5893; 2017 WL 1244893
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hurwitz
- **Judges:** Thomas, O'Scannlain, McKeown, Fletcher, Gould, Bybee, Bea, Smith, Watford, Hurwitz, Friedland
- **Nature of suit:** Criminal
- **Cited by:** 243 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/9873941

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating standard of review and explaining that a court abuses its discretion only if the decision to impose the enhancement is “illogical” or “implausible” based on the facts in the record
- holding that we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s application of the Guidelines to a case’s facts
- emphasizing the distinction between “identifying the correct legal standard on the one hand, and applying that standard to the facts of a given case on the other”
- explaining that district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error
- stating that factual findings at sentencing are reviewed for clear error

## Opinion text

HURWITZ, Circuit Judge,
with whom FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring in part and concurring in the result:
As the court today correctly notes, “[i]n most cases, the standard of review does not affect the outcome.” That is true here. The district court found that the injuries suffered by the victim — “several lacerations ... and a small burn” — warranted imposition of the bodily injury enhancement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Ll.l(b)(7)(A). Whether reviewed de novo or with deference, the district court’s determination was plainly correct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.l(B) (defining bodily injury as any significant injury). I would therefore leave for another day, and in a case where it matters to the outcome, the interesting issue of the appropriate standard of review.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873941. Public record. Not legal advice.