Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0492-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Dane ROBERTY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30338
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2017  Seattle, Washington
    Filed April 20, 2017
    
      Cyndee L. Peterson, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The government conceded that Amendment 801 to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) was a retroactive, clarifying amendment. Thus, we treat the amendment as retroactively applying to Roberty. See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1010-11 (9th Cir. 2004).

The government also conceded that the district court erred in calculating Rober-tas guidelines range by applying the section and increasing his offense level by two. The error was not harmless. “A mistake in calculating the recommended Guidelines sentencing range is a significant procedural error that requires us to remand for resentencing.” United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Under the amended guidelines section, Roberty does not qualify for the two-level increase in § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). Roberty is also potentially eligible for an additional two-level decrease. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(l). These changes would give Roberty a different guidelines range that does not substantially overlap with the range the district court calculated. Therefore, we must vacate Ro-bertas sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.