UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ER W IN ALVAR

ADO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-10622

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-02002-JGZB PV-1 Distric t of Ariz ona , Tuc son ORDER B e fore : WARDLAW , C LIFTON, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. The pa rtie s’ joint motion to a ffirm the distric t c ourt without pre judic e to re se nte nc ing is gra

nte d. The m e m orandum

disposition file d on Se pte m be r 14, 2012, is withdra

wn. A re p l a c e m e nt m e m orandum disposition is file d c o nc urre ntly with this order. The pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc is de nie d a s m oot. 

# FIL ED D EC 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALSN O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ER W IN ALVAR

ADO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-10622

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-02002-JGZB PV-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 10, 2012 * * B e fore : WARDLAW , C LIFTON, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. Erwin Alva

ra do a ppe a ls from

the 24–m onth se nte nc e im p ose d following his guilty -ple a

c onvic tion for ille g a l re -e ntry a fte r de porta

tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. 

# FIL ED D EC 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Alva

ra d o a sse rte d tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by not sua sponte granting him a third-le ve l re duc tion for a c c e p ta nc e of re sponsibility . He argue d tha t the re a son c ite d by the gove rnm e nt for re fusing to make the m o tion for there duc tion, tha t he re se rve d his right to a

ppe a l, wa s a

n im pe rm issiblere a s on unde r U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). Effe c tive Nove m

be r 1, 2013, U.S.S.G § 3E1.1 wa s a m e n de d to c la

rify tha t

“ [t] he gove rnm e nt should not withhold [a m otion for a

third-le ve l re d

u c tion for a c c e pta n c e of re sponsibility] ba se d on inte re sts not identifie d in § 3E1.1, such a s whe the r the de fe nda

nt a gre e s to wa ive his or he r right to a ppe a l.” U.S.S.G § 3E1.1, c m

t. n.6. Thepa

rtie s ha ve file d a joint mo tion indic ating tha t re s e nte nc ing is wa rrante d in light of this a

m e ndm e nt, but re que sting ne ve rthe le ss tha t the se nte nc e be a ffirm e d without pre judic e be c a

use Alva ra d o ha s be e n

re le a se d a

nd re m ove d from

the Unite d

State s. Ac c ordingly , be c a use Alva ra do ha s be e n re m ove d from

the Unite d

State s, we a ffirm

the se nte nc e im

pose d by the distric t c ourt, but do so without pre judic e to a

late r re que st by

Alva ra do for a re se nte nc ing if he re turns to theUnite d State s. Se eUnite d State s v . Aguilar-Re

y e s , 723 F.3d 1014, 1017-18 (9th C ir. 2013). AFFIRM E D w i thout pr e judic e and w i th instr uc tions.

2