UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10127 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 4:20-cr-00412- JAS-MSA-3 JOSE MARIA RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, AKA Jose Maria Nunez-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2022 Phoenix, Arizona

Filed August 22, 2022

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Richard A. Paez, and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Paez 2 UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ

SUMMARY *

Criminal Law

The panel vacated a judgment of conviction, following a bench trial, for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to do the same and remanded for specific findings of fact.

The panel held that the district court plainly erred by making only a written finding of guilt after trial, in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The panel concluded that, although the usual remedy would be a remand to announce the finding in open court, the district court had already reiterated its finding of guilt publicly during the defendant’s sentencing, rendering such a remedy superfluous.

The panel further held that, because the finding of guilt was legally insufficient, the district court erred in denying as untimely the defendant’s motion for specific findings of fact. Instead, the panel vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded for the district court to make specific findings of fact.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ 3

COUNSEL J. Ryan Moore (argued), Assistant Federal Public Defender; Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender; Office of the Federal Public Defender, Tucson, Arizona; for Defendant- Appellant. Terry M. Crist (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Christina M. Cabanillas, Deputy Appellate Chief; Glenn B. McCormick, United States Attorney; United States Attorney’s Office, Tucson, Arizona; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

José Nuñez-Ramirez 1 (“Nuñez”) was tried for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to do the same during a one-day bench trial. At the close of the trial, the district court indicated that it wanted additional time to review the evidence but would announce a decision shortly thereafter. A few days later, the court issued a written order finding Nuñez guilty on both counts. It did not convene a hearing or order the parties to return to court to announce the finding. Nuñez subsequently filed a motion for findings of fact under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(c). Although he acknowledged that the motion might be untimely because the rule requires that such a motion be made “before the finding of guilty or not guilty,” Nuñez argued that he had been unaware that the court

1 The defendant was indicted under the name “Jose Ramirez- Ramirez,” but he clarified to the district court that his name is actually José Nuñez-Ramirez. We therefore refer to him by that name. 4 UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ intended to deliver its finding without a hearing. The district court denied the motion.

The district court plainly erred. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a public trial. In making only a written finding of guilt, rather than announcing its finding in a public setting, the district cou