© 2014 Warren & Burstein - 501 West Broadway, Suite 240, San Diego, CA 92101 - (619) 234-4433 - jw@wabulaw.com                                                                           db@wabulaw.com

 

 

  Our recent victories include:

  • United States v. Graves, 925 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2019).  The Ninth Circuit vacated our client's life sentence.  The Court agreed with our argument that the mandatory-minimum life term did not apply.

  • United States v. Ocampo-Estrada, 873 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2017).  The Ninth Circuit vacated our client's 20-year, mandatory minimum sentence.  Agreeing with our arguments, the Court held the government failed to prove our client had a qualifying prior conviction that could be used to double his sentence. 

  • United States v. Johnson, 695 Fed. App'x 304 (9th Cir. 2017).  In this health care fraud case, the Ninth Circuit agreed with our argument and vacated our client's sentence based on the lower court's error in imposing an authentication-feature enhancement.

  • Cuero v. Cate, 823 F.3d 879, Case No. 12-55911 (9th Cir. 2016).  The Court of Appeals reversed the district court and granted our client's petition for habeas corpus.  The Court agreed with our argument that the state prosecutor breached our client's plea agreement and thus violated his constitutional rights.  As a result, the Court ordered his 25-to-life sentence reduced to 14 years and 4 months, as originally promised by the state.  

  • United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016).  The Court of Appeals granted our request to vacate our client’s sentence and ordered a new sentencing hearing. The case concerned the minor-role provision of the sentencing Guidelines, one of the most important provisions for criminal defendants.  The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Burstein's arguments that the new amendments to the minor role provision are retroactive and that district courts must consider all of the enumerated factors in deciding whether to grant or deny the minor-role reduction.  

 

  • United States v. McKany, --- Fed. App’x ---, Case No. 14-50483 (9th Cir. 2016).  Mr. Burstein handled this appeal along with renowned attorney Eugene Iredale, who argued the matter.  The Court agreed with our argument that, when agents questioned our client at his home, he was in custody.  Therefore, the agents’ failure to provide Miranda warnings violated his rights.  As a result, our client’s statements should have been suppressed.  

 

  • United States v. Moser, 803 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit issued a published opinion in favor of our client in a civil forfeiture case. The central issue was whether the district court committed error in slashing the attorney fee awared to the prevailing party.  The appeals court agreed with Mr. Burstein that the district court made serious errors and remanded the matter.  

 

  • United States v. Salazar, 598 Fed. App'x (9th Cir. 2015) - Mr. Burstein argued that the district court made errors in denying the client's motion to suppress the evidence against him.  The decision holds that the government must turn over all records related to dog training when probable cause to search comes from a detector dog.  

 

  • United States v. Torres Pimental, 755 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2014) - Mr. Burstein argued the client's confession should have been suppressed because the agents improperly delayed bringing him before a judge.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, issuing a published opinion vacating the client's conviction.   

     

  • United States v. Thum, 749 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2014) - Mr. Burstein convinced the Court of Appeals that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove our client committed the crime with which he was charged. This case is one of the few dealing with the subsection of the alien-smuggling statute prohibiting encouraging or inducing an undocumented person to reside in the United States.

 

  • United States v. Montes-Ruiz, 745 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 2014) – Mr. Burstein argued to the Court of Appeals that one federal judge could not impose a sentence to run consecutive to a not-yet-imposed sentence from another federal judge. The Court agreed and vacated his client’s sentence.

 

  • United States v. Silerio-Ramirez, 554 Fed. App'x 612 (9th Cir. 2014) - The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Burstein that his client's sentence should be vacated.  The Court determined that the district court made a mistake in calculating the proper sentencing range and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing. 

 

  • United States v. Altamirano Garcia, Case No. 13-cr-1778-AJB (SD. Ca. 2013) – The prosecution charged Mr. Burstein’s client with importing multiple kilograms of cocaine.  The case went to trial and the jury found Mr. Burstein's client not guilty of all charges.  

 

  • United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2013) – Mr. Burstein argued, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that a federal agent violated his client’s Fourth Amendment rights by answering his client’s cell phone without consent, in order to gain information about alien smuggling.  Based on this ruling, all charges against his client were dismissed.​

 

  • United States v. Rivas-Meneses, 557 Fed. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2013) - Mr. Burstein argued that his client was entitled to a new sentencing hearing based on the lower courts mistakes. The Court of Appeals agreed and ordered a new sentencing hearing.

 

  • United States v. Casillas, 538 Fed. App'x 751 (9th Cir. 2013) – Mr. Burstein argued that federal agents violated his client’s Fifth Amendment and Miranda rights by failing to honor his client’s wish to right to remain silent and by coercing his confession.  The Ninth Circuit sided with Mr. Burstein, vacated the conviction, and all charges were dismissed.

 

  • United States v. Muniz-Jaquez, 718 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir 2013) – Mr. Burstein argued that the government failed to turn over tape recordings relevant to his client’s alleged crime.  The Court of Appeals agreed, vacated his client’s conviction, and ordered the government to turn over the recordings.

 

  • United States v. Ramirez, 714 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) – The Ninth Circuit agreed with Mr. Burstein’s argument that his client’s drug conspiracy conviction should be vacated because the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt.  The Ninth Circuit further agreed that the district court had given an improper jury instruction.  

 

  • United States v. Rodriguez-Garcia, No. 497 Fed. App’x 766 (9th Cir. 2012) – Mr. Burstein argued that the government breached its plea agreement with his client by recommended a sentence higher than the parties had agreed upon.  The Court of Appeals sided with Mr. Burstein and ordered a new sentencing before a different judge. 

 

  • United States v. Salas-Rivera, 472 Fed. App’x 684 (9th Cir. 2012) – The Ninth Circuit agreed with Mr. Burstein that his client should get a new trial because of unfair testimony from a government witness. 

  • United States v. Rodriguez-Mepfords, 433 Fed. App’x 557 (9th Cir. 2011) – Mr. Burstein’s client’s rights were violated at his supervised release sentencing hearing.  As a result, the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and ordered a new hearing.

 

  • United States v. Ramirez, 324 Fed. App’x 663 (9th Cir. 2009) – The Ninth Circuit ordered Mr. Burstein’s client’s sentence reduced, because it was greater than had been promised in his plea agreement.

  • United States v. Martinez-Hernandez, 312 Fed. App’x 984 (9th Cir. 2009) – The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Burstein that his client was not competent to stand trial and reversed the conviction.