Case ID: f-appx_596/html/0574-01.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. Jose ESCOBAR-ESCOBAR, aka Jesus Escobar-Escobar, aka Jesus Escobar-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50021.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 2, 2015.
    
    Filed March 6, 2015.
    David P. Finn, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Erick L. Guzman, Esquire, Law Offices of Erick Guzman, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Escobar-Escobar appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following a conviction for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

In imposing a high-end sentence of 16 months, the district court stated that “as part of [his] thinking in this case,” he considered the costs to the taxpayers in providing Escobar with legal representation, court process, and incarceration. A district court, however, may not consider cost as a sentencing factor. See United States v. Tapia-Romero, 523 F.3d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir.2008) (stating that § 3553(a) “neither requires, nor allows, a court to consider the cost of imprisonment in determining the appropriate length of a defendant’s term of imprisonment”).

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