Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0485-01.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. Devonte Lee SILAS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 15-10072.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Christina Covault, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Keith J. Hilzendeger, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Fpdaz-Federal Public Defenders Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Devonte Lee Silas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 43-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2243(a), and 2246(2)(D). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Silas contends, and the government concedes, that remand is warranted because the district court imposed the sentence for the purpose of rehabilitation. We agree with the parties that the court improperly considered Silas’s need for rehabilitative services, including sex offender treatment, when it imposed the sentence. Therefore, we vacate and remand for resentencing. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2391, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (sentencing courts are precluded “from imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender’s rehabilitation”).

In light of this disposition, we decline to consider Silas’s remaining claims.

Finding no unusual circumstances, we decline to reassign this case to a different judge on remand. See United States v. Acostar-Chavez, 727 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir.2013) (absent unusual circumstances, re-sentencing is to be done by the original sentencing judge).

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