Case ID: f-appx_407/html/0241-01.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. Roberto OLIVER-GUZMAN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-50669.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 5, 2011.
    Jaime D. Parks, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, Sara Marie Peloquin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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.

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, 555 U.S. 261, 129 S.Ct. 840, 843-44, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009) (per curiam); United States v. Mitchell, 624 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir.2010) (“[District judges are at liberty to reject any Guideline on policy grounds....”). We vacate and remand for resentencing. See Moore v. United States, 555 U.S. 1, 129 S.Ct. 4, 5, 172 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008)(per curiam).

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