Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0769-01.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. Grady Ewing MAYS, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 12-30224, 12-30349.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
    Leif Johnson, USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Marvin McCann, McCann Law Firm, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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, Grady Ewing Mays appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In Appeal No. 12-30224, we vacate the district court’s judgment. In Appeal No. 12-30349, we vacate Mays’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

The parties agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate Mays’s supervised release term in 2011. The parties further agree that the court was therefore without authority to revoke Mays’s supervised release, and that Mays was not under a criminal justice sentence when he failed to register as a sex offender. We accordingly vacate the judgment revoking Mays’s supervised release. We also vacate the sentence imposed upon Mays’s conviction for failure to register and remand for resentencing. Upon remand, the district court shall recalculate the Guidelines range without assessing Mays two points under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(d).

In light of our decision, we decline to reach Mays’s other arguments.

Appeal No. 12-30224 VACATED.

Appeal No. 12-30349 VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.