Case ID: f-appx_270/html/0613-01.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. Francisco MARQUEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50355.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2008 .
    Filed March 18, 2008.
    
      Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy R. Garrison, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendantr-Appellant.
    Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This ease was previously before this court after appellant’s initial sentencing in September 2006, case number 06-50544. In that appeal, the government filed a motion for summary reversal and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to provide notice of its intent to sentence appellant outside the range suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h). See United States v. Evans-Martinez, 448 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.2006). On May 14, 2007, this court granted the government’s motion, vacated the sentence and remanded proceedings.

On remand, the district judge failed to calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range before concluding that a sentence outside the range was appropriate. The government has again moved for summary reversal and remand for the district court to resentence appellant by first calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range before departing or adjusting from the base offense level. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Appellant does not oppose the motion.

A review of the record supports the government’s motion, and the motion for summary reversal and remand is granted.

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