Case ID: f-appx_519/html/0451-01.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. Jordan HUFF; Marcus Major, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 12-10281, 12-10282.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 20, 2013.
    Kimberly A. Sanchez, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Arthur Henry Weed, Esquire, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    
      Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Jordan Huff and Marcus Major appeal from their sentences imposed by the district court following remand. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Huff and Major contend that the district court erred in its interpretation of the scope of our remand when it declined to conduct a plenary resentencing hearing. We review the district court’s compliance with a mandate from this court de novo. See United States v. Perez, 475 F.3d 1110, 1112 (9th Cir.2007). The district court properly complied with the terms of the mandate to resentence Huff and Major using one of the brandishing counts as the first conviction.

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