Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0455-01.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. Micah James GODFREY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10246.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Amanda H. Beck, United States Attorney’s Office, Oakland, CA, for. Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Petrik, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Micah James Godfrey appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges thé 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Godfrey argues, and the government agrees, that remand is warranted because the district court improperly imposed the custodial sentence in order to promote Godfrey’s rehabilitation. We agree that the record reflects that the court imposed the length of the sentence to ensure that Godfrey would continue to receive mental health treatment in custody. We, therefore, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See Tapia v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2391, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011); United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 282 (9th Cir.2011) (rehabilitation “cannot be the reason” for imposing a term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release).

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