⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears the sentencing appeal of Aguilar Saucedo, who pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing fentanyl after selling pills made to look like oxycodone in 2020. The appeal involves a four-level sentencing increase for knowingly marketing fentanyl as another substance. Offense levels help determine an advisory sentencing range; four levels do not mean four years. The central distinction is actual knowledge, not merely reason to suspect what the pills contained. Two standards matter: preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not; clear-error review is the appeals court's separate, deferential check on a factual finding. There is also a dispute about supervised release, the period of court-ordered supervision after prison. PSR means the presentence report, prepared to help the judge determine a sentence. Under the Ninth Circuit's Montoya decision, discretionary supervision conditions must be pronounced in the defendant's presence, but the judge can adopt an advance written list by reference. The question here is whether that reference was sufficiently clear. You will also hear ex post facto, which concerns retroactively increasing punishment. The parties agree to use the older guideline in this argument. The court is reviewing the sentence and how it was imposed, not holding a new trial about whether the pills contained fentanyl.

United States v. Aguilar Saucedo (No. 25-5050) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.