Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0849-01.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 MARTINEZ-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50175
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Charlotte E. Kaiser, Steven Lee,'Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Grant Eddy, Attorney, Law Office of Grant L. Eddy, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without- oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Martinez-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed 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 for resentenc-ing.

Martinez-Diaz contends that the district court erred by basing the sentence on an incorrect characterization of his criminal history. The record reflects that, while Martinez-Diaz had prior drug arrests, he did not sustain a drug conviction in 2006 or at any other time. However, the district court referred to a 2006 drug conviction, and Martinez-Diaz’s history of “drug trafficking,” in the course of explaining why a downward variance was .not warranted. Because there is a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence had it not mistakenly believed that Martinez-Diaz had prior drug convictions, we vacate and remand for re-sentencing. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (selection of sentence based on clearly erroneous facts constitutes procedural error).

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.