United States v. Roberto Oliver-Guzman
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roberto OLIVER-GUZMAN, Defendant—Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- John A. Houston (district judge)
- Outcome
- vacated — VACATED and REMANDED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Richard R. Clifton
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50669 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00866-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * ROBERTO OLIVER-GUZMAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Oliver-Guzman appeals from the 65-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we vacate and remand.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Oliver-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred when it did not consider his policy arguments against the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. The record indicates that the district court mistakenly believed that it did not have the authority to reject the 16-level enhancement on policy grounds. See Spears v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 840, 843-44 (2009) (per curiam);
United States v. Williams, 624 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[D]istrict judges are at liberty to reject any Guideline on policy grounds . . . .”). We vacate and remand for resentencing. See Moore v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 4, 5 (2008) (per curiam).
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 09-50669