United States v. Juan Hernandez-Hernandez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 31 2012
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. 11-50192 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-02027-MMA v. MEMORANDUM * JUAN CARLOS HERNANDEZ- HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Hernandez-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for three counts of bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain and aiding * 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). and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii); and three counts of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Hernandez-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when imposing sentence below the mandatory minimum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.
2009).
Hernandez-Hernandez also contends that he was denied his right of allocution under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). We agree with the parties that the district court failed to afford Hernandez-Hernandez the right to allocute at sentencing, and that the error was not harmless because the court could have imposed a shorter sentence by departing further under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. See United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing so that the district court may afford Hernandez-Hernandez the opportunity to allocute.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 11-50192