Case ID: f-appx_259/html/0992-01.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. Jose Angel CERVANTES-SANTANA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-30435.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
    Filed Dec. 18, 2007.
    Donald E. Kresse, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rebecca L. Pennell, Esq., Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Angel Cervantes-Santana appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Cervantes-Santana contends that the district court erred by assessing one criminal history point for his 1993 conviction for driving with a suspended license which resulted in a wholly suspended sentence. In light of recent clarifying law, we agree. See United States v. Gonzales, 506 F.3d 940, 943-45 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). We further conclude that this error was not harmless. See United States v. Alvarez-Hernandez, 478 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing consistent with Gonzales. See Gonzales, 506 F.3d at 943-45.

Cervantes-Santana next contends that the district court erred by increasing his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on a prior conviction that he did not admit, and a jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt. As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006).

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.