Case ID: f-appx_320/html/0693-01.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-Appellant, v. Justin Douglas ORTMANN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-50168.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 27, 2009.
    Elizabeth Carpenter, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Anne M. Voigts, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Mark Yanis, Huntington Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The government appeals the sentence imposed following Justin Douglas Ort-mann’s guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The district court suspended the imposition of sentence and imposed a five year term of probation with a condition that Ortmann spend twelve months in custody during the probationary period. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

The government argues that the district court lacked the authority to suspend the imposition of sentence, and to impose a fixed term of imprisonment as a condition of probation. We agree. See United States v. Murillo, 548 F.3d 1256, 1257 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that district courts do not have the power to suspend the imposition of a sentence, nor can a district court impose a constant period of imprisonment as a condition of probation); see also United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Ch. 7, Part A, § 2(a) (2007). Accordingly, we vacate and remand the sentence.

This panel retains jurisdiction over any future appeals in this case.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We note that the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Murillo at the time this case was decided.