Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0370-01.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. Angel LOPEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-10044
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017
    
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Susan B. Gray, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Heather M. Angove, FPDCA — Federal Public Defenders Office, Northern District of California, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Angel Lopez-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following 'his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

The government concedes, and we agree, that the district court plainly erred by failing to address Lopez-Ramirez personally to ask if he wanted to speak before sentencing. See Fed. R. Crim. P, 32(i)(4)(A)(ii); United States v. Daniels, 760 F.3d 920, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for re-sentencing. See Daniels, 760 F.3d at 926.

Lopez-Ramirez asks us to reach his other claims of error to provide the district court “guidance” on remand. We decline to do so because we do not know what sentencing arguments the parties will make on remand, how the court will respond to those arguments, or what sentence it will impose. See United States v. Kaczynski, 551 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009) (declining to issue an advisory opinion based on speculation about possible future events).

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.