The H o norable W il li am T. Law rence , Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t  Co ur tJ udg e f orthe S ou the r n Di s t r i c to fI nd i a na, s i t t i ngby des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 2308 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. O CT A VI O V I LL EG AS -M I RANDA, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 07 CR 130

— George W. Lindberg, Judg e.
A RG UE D M AY 7, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 27, 2009

Befo reF LAUM an d W IL L IA MS, C ircu it Judges , and L AWREN CE, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judge. O c t a v i o V i l l e gas - M i r a nd a bel i eve s that the go vernm ent intenti onal l y del aye d charg

i nghi m wi thi l l eg alr ee nt r y, a fede r alc r i m e, w hi l e he2 N o. 08

- 2308

w as in s ta te cu st od y on a d om es tic ba tt er y c h ar ge . Th is del a y, h e c l a i ms , wa s d e s i g n e d t o d e p r i v e h i m o ft he o ppo r tu ni tyt o s er ve h i s fede r als en te nc e co nc ur r en t w i th the r em ai nd ero fhi s s tat e s entence
. A t s entencing, he a ske d the dist ric t co urt to l ower the federalse ntence that i t intended to i m pose so that he co uld r ecei ve cre ditf orthe l osto pp or tuni ty to ser ve it c on c u rre n tly w ith th e e n d of h is s ta te se n te n c e. In supp or t o fthi s a rgum ent, h e point ed to deci si ons fro m seve ra lo therci rcui ts w hi ch r eco gni ze that a dist ri ct cour t m ay i ssue l ower s entence s t o com pensate f or su chde l ay s. Unf o r tu na te l y f o rVi l l eg as - M i r an da, the d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otad d re ss t h i s a rg u m en t d u rin g h is se nt en cinghe ar i ng . Be caus e we fi nd tha t th i s ar g um en t ha d l egal and f actu al m erit, un d er U ni t e d St at es v. Cunni ngh am , 4 29 F

. 3d 6 73 , 6 79 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) , the d ist ric t c ou rtw as req u ir e d to sp ec ifica lly ad d re ss it. I t did not, so we re m and thi s m att erf orr ese ntenci ng.

I . B AC KGR OUND O c ta vi o Vil l ega s- M i ra nd a i s a M exi can nati onal w ho is not a Un i ted S tat es ci ti zen. S i nce e m i gr ating from M exi co t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 1 9 9 0 a s a y o uth, V i l l e g a s - M i r a nd a has be en arr es ted si xteen t i m es and convi cted o ftwel ve cri m es, i ncl ud i ng, am ong othe r th i ngs, dom est i c ba tte ry, s a l e o f na r c o t i c s , a nd dr i v i ng un de r the i nfl ue nc e . A f ter a co nvi cti on fordom est i c ba tte ryi n J une 200 2, Vi l l ega sM i ra nd a was deport ed to M exi co. A ftersne ak ing ba ck i nt o the Uni te d S ta te s, he was c o nv i ct ed o fv i o l at i ng 8 U.S. C. § 1 326, wh i ch pro hibi ts re entr y into the Unite dN o. 08

- 2308 3 St ate s bya non- ci ti zen pr evi ousl y c onvi cted o f an aggr av a t e d fe l o ny, a nd wa s a g a i n de po r t e d. Du ring hi s th ird t rip to the U ni ted S tat es, o n M ay 6, 20 06 , Ville ga s-M ira n d a w as ag a i n a rre st ed for d om es tic b a t t e r y . He p l e a d e d g u i l ty i ns t a t e c o u r ta n d wa s s en t e nc e d t o thi r ty mon ths ’ i mpr i s o nme nt
. V i l l e g a s - M i r a nd a w as supp o s e d t o b e p a r o l e d fr o m s t a t e c us t o dyo n F e bruar y 9, 2007, but w as hel d o n a federa l i m m i gr ati on detai ner unti lFebruary 1 2, 20 07, w hen a federa li m m i gr ati on o ffi cerar ri ved and once aga i n ch ar ged hi m with i l l ega lr eentry purs uant to 8 U

. S. C. § 1 326. V i l l eg as - M i r an da pl ea ded g ui l tyt o i l l eg alr ee ntry w i thout a ple a agr eem ent. H i s Se ntenci ng G u i del i nes r an g e was se ve nty - se ve n to ni ne ty
- si x m o nths ’ i m p ri so nm en t. I t i s undi spu te d th at i n hi s se nt encing m emor an d u m, a n d d u r i n gh i s s e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n g, h e ma d e t wo pri m ar y a rgum ents i n re questi ng a bel ow-Guid elines sente nce: ( 1) hi s daughterwas i l land he nee ded to be w i th her ; and ( 2) the dist ri ct c ourtsho uld e xerci se i ts di sc r et i o n a nd i ss ue a s enten ce atl ea stnine months bel ow t he b o t t o m o fthe a dv i s o r y Gu i de l i ne s r a ng e to effecti vel y c re dithi m w ith the ti m e s er ved i n sta te pri son on the bat ter y c harg e ( hi s “ concurr ent s entence s” ar gum en t)

. The gi sto fVi l l eg as - M i r an da’ s se co nd a r g um en t w a s t h atif th e g ov er n m en t h ad ch ar ge d h im w ith i l l ega lr eentry when he w as ar re ste d on M ay 6, 20 06 ( orany re aso nabl e tim e pri orto hi s r el eas e fro m st ate custo dy), the district c ourtwould have been abl e t o se n t e n c e h i m c o n c u r r e n t l y wi th h i s s t a t e t i me . S i n ce t he g o ve r nm en t di d no t do s o , Vi l l eg as - M i r an da l o stthe4 N o. 08

- 2308 opportunity t o ser ve hi s s tat e a nd federa lse ntences c o n c u r r e n t l y, a n d h e a s k e d th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tto c o mpensate f orthi s byi ssui ng a bel ow-Guidel i nes s entence
. The dist ri ct cour t ackno w l edged that i t had “perused [ Vi l l e g a s - M i r a nd a ’ s ] r a the re xt e ns i v e s e nt e nc i ngmem ora nd um ” a nd f ound it to be “w el l drafted and ver y per suasi ve. ” I t then r ej ec ted Vi l l ega s- M i ra nd a’ s f am i l y s i tuati o n a r g um en t be ca us e i t f o und tha t hi s pr es en ce in the h ou se h old ex ac erb at ed th e s i t u at ion (by as sa u ltin g h is f am i l y m em ber s) r atherthan al l evi ating i t. I t stat ed that a hi gh, withi n-Gui d elines s entence was appropri ate because o fVi l l eg a s - M i r anda’s exte nsi ve cri m i nal hi st or y and because he r epeate dlyr eente re d the Un i ted S t a t e s a ft e r b e i ng de po r t e d. Th e c o ur t s e nt e nc e d hi m to ni nety m onths’ i m pri sonm ent and thre e y ear s’ superv i sed release. T he cou rt did not ad d ress V il legas-M ira n d a’s seco nd princi pal ar gum ent, thata bel ow-Guid elines se n te n c e s h ou ld be im p os ed to e f f e c tiv ely cr ed it h im wi tht i m e se r ve d i n s ta te pr i so n.

II. A N A L Y S IS A . Th e D i st r i ctCourtW as Requ i r ed,But Fail ed t o, A dd r es s A l l Pri ncipal A r gum ents t hat W er e “ N ot So Wea k As t o No tMeri tDi s c us s i o n” V il legas-M irand a argu es th a t the district cou rt’s f ail ure t o r e s p o n d t o h i s a r g u me n tth a ti ts h o ul d i s s u e a b e l o wGu i de l i ne s senten c e t o c o mpe ns a t e h i m f o rthe l o s to ppo r tu ni tyt o s er ve hi s s tate and fede r als en te nc es c o ncurr entl y, as a re sul t o fthe gov er nm ent’ s purpor ted del ayN o. 08

- 2308 5 i n c ha r g i nghi m w i thi l l eg alre en try, re qui r es us t o r emand for res en te n c in g. T h e g ov er n m en t d isa gr ee s b ec au se it conte nd s that: ( 1) the dist ric t co urt adequatel y s tat ed i ts re aso ns f ori ssui ng Vi l l ega s- M i ra nd a’ s ni nety m onth se nt en ce ; a nd ( 2) Vi l l eg as - M i r an da’ s “c o nc ur r en t se ntence s” ar gu m ent was suffi ci entl y weak so as to not re quir e a r esponse fro m the dist ri ct c ourt
. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct cou rt’ s s entencing deci si ons f or reason ablen ess, but its sen ten cing p roced ure s un d er a n on -d efe re n tia l st an d ar d

. U ni t e d St at e s v. M e ndoz a , 51 0 F

. 3d 74 9, 75 4 ( 7th Ci r . 20 07 )

. A wi th i n- Gui del i ne s sen te n c e is p re s u m ed rea so n ab le. U nite d States v. O m ole, 523 F. 3d 691, 69 6 (7t h Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 55 1, U

. S. 33 8 ( 2007 ) )

. A se ntenci ng co urt need not com prehensi vel y di scuss each o fthe f acto rs l i ste d i n 18 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a). U nited Stat e s v. D e an , 41 4 F

. 3d 725, 72 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)

. Rather, i t m u st gi ve the r eas ons f or its sente nc ing d ecision an d ad d ress allof a d efend an t’s pri nci pal a rg u m ents that “ar e no t s o w eakas to not m er i t di scussi on. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 42 9 F

. 3d 673, 679 (7th C ir. 2005). The g o ve r nm en t fi r stc o nt en ds, r ely i ngo n U nited Sta tes v. M illet, 5 10 F

. 3d 668 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , thatbec ause the di str i ct c ourtga ve sound re aso ns f ori ts w i thi n-Gui del i ne s se nt en ce ( Vi l l eg as - M i r an da’ s cr i m i na l hi st o r y and rep eated i ll egal reen t r y i nt o the U nited States), its f ail ure to add re ss Vi l l ega s- M i ra nd a’ s “ concurr ent s entence s” ar gum en t do es no t m er i t r emand. In M illet, we f ound that a s entencingco urt gave an a dequ ate st ate m ent o fi ts re aso ns f ori ssui ng a w i thi n-Gui del i nes s entence f or6 N o. 08

- 2308 drug and co nspir acy offen ses, ev en tho ugh i t di d not ad dress ea ch ofthe defe nd ant’ s a rgum ents f ora bel ow-Guidel i nes sen tence i n detai lo r speci fi cal l y a dd re ss each o fthe sect i on 3 553( a) f acto rs bec ause, am ong othe r thi ngs, the cour t’ s s tat em ents as a w hol e ind i cate d beyo nd a doubt that i t consi dered al l of the s ecti on 3 553( a) fac to rs . Id

. at67 9- 80. C on tr ar y t o th e g ov er n m en t’s as se rt ion, M illetdoes not co nt r o lhe r e. M i l l et ’ s ar g um en t o n a ppea lwas tha t th e se nt en cingc o ur t er red b y no t spe ci fi ca l l y a ddr es sing ev ery s ec ti o n 3 55 3( a) f ac to ra nd/ o rb y f ai l i ngt o r es po nd to ea c hof h is arg u m en ts for a low er se n te n c e in d et ail. Id

. D ean an d Cunn i ngh am f o r e c l o s e d th e s e qu e s t i o n s ; the cour t need notdi scuss each s ecti on 3 553( a) f acto r at se nt en cinga nd n eed notr es po nd t o e ve r y pi thy a r g um ent that a d efe n dant ra i ses , j ust the “pr i nci pal ” o nes. D e an , 414 F.3d at72 9; Cunni ngh am , 42 9 F

. 3d at 676- 79 ( ci ti ng Un i t e dS t at e s v. Wi l l i a ms , 42 5 F

. 3d 478, 47 9 ( 7th C ir. 20 05 )). V i lleg as -M ira n d a’s arg u m en t o nap p ea l, how eve r, i s n ot that the c ourtdi d not a dequ ate l y s tat e its re a s o n s fo r im p os in g h is s en te n c e, bu t ra th er th atit f ai l ed to speci fi cal ly ad d re ss hi s princi pal ar gum ent for a low er se n te n c e. Cunni ngh am address es thi s quest i on as w e l l

. Th e c o ur t mus t s t a t e i t s r e a s o ns f o r r ej e c t i ng a defe n d ant’ s princi pal ar gum ents i fthe ar gum ents have m e rit
. Cunni ngh am , 42 9 F

. 3d at 679 ( “W e ca nnot hav e m uch confi dence i n the j ud ge’ s co nsi dered attenti on t o th e f acto rs i n thi s ca se, wh en he passed o veri n si l ence the pr i nci pal ar gum ent m ade bythe defe n d an t e ven th ou gh t h e a r gu m en t w as n otso w ea k a s n otto m er it disc ussi on, as i t w oul d have be en i fanyo ne acquaintedN o. 08

- 2308 7 wi ththe f ac ts w o ul d hav e kno wn wi th o utb eingt o l d why the j ud ge had no t accepte d the ar gum ent.
. . . A j ud ge w ho f a i l s t o me nt i o n a g r o un d o fr e c o g ni z e d l e g al m er i t ( provi ded i t has a f actual b as i s) i s l i kely t o have co m m i tt ed ane r r o ro ro ve r si g ht

. ”)

. Ev eni fthe s en tencing court sta ted co nvi nci ng r eas ons f orthe sente nce i t i m posed, we cannot fi nd i ts silen c e i n re sponse to a defe nd ant’s p rinci pal ar gum ent t o be har m l ess er ro r because we can neve r be s ure of w h at effect i t had, o r co ul d ha ve ha d, o n the c o ur t’ s dec i si on. Id

. Giv en that th er e i s no di spu te tha t Vi l l eg as - M i r an da’ s “c o nc ur r en t se nt en ce s” a r g um en t was o ne o fhi s two pr incip ala r g um en ts , if it “w as n ot so w ea k as to n o t m e r i t d isc u ss ion,” th e s en te n c in g c ou rtw as req u ire d t o r e s p o n d to it. Seeid

. A l though the di str i ct c ourtl i ste ned at l ength to Vil l ega sM i ra nd a’ s “ concurr ent s entence s” ar gum ent, we cannot ta k e o n f ai ththa t i t adeq ua te l y c o ns i der ed th e ar g um ent where i t “ passed i t o veri n si l ence. ” Id

. T he govern m en t n e xt cont en d s tha t Vill egas’s “con cu rre n t s en te n c es ” a rg u m en t is w ea k e n o u gh n otto m er it disc ussi on be cause: ( 1) i t i s no t an ar gum ent ofr eco gni zed l ega lm er i t; and ( 2) it l acks a f actualbasi s. Sever alci rcui ts have re cogni zed thata dist ri ct c ourthas the a uthor i ty to i ssue a be l ow-Guidel i nes se ntence base d on the del ay between the ti m e federa li m m i gr ati on o ffi ci al s di scove re d th at a defe nd ant i l l ega l l y r eente re d the Un i ted St at es an d th e t im e th atth e g ov er n m en t c h ar ge d h im w i t h ille ga l ree n tr y. See, e . g. , Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Ba r re r aSau ce do , 385 F.3d 53 3 , 5 37(5t hC ir. 20 04 ) (h old in g th atit was “ per m i ss ibl e f o ra s en te nc i ngc o ur t to g r an t a do wnw ar d dep ar ture to an i l l ega lali en for a l lo r part of8 N o. 08

- 2308 ti m e s er ved i n sta te custody fro m the ti m e i m m i gr ati on author i ti es l oca te the defe nd ant unti l he i s taken into fed er al c u st od y.” ); U nited Sta tes v. Sa nc hez -R o drig uez , 16 1 F. 3d 556, 56 2 ( 9th Ci r. 19 97) ( en b an c ) (h ol ding that a do wnw ar d de par tu r e m ayb e g r an te d b as ed o n a de fen dant’s l osto pp or tuni ty to ser ve hi s federa lse ntence c on c u rre n tly w ith h is s ta te s e n t en c e d u e t o th e d ela y in com m enci ng federa l proce edi ngs after im m i gr ati on au th or itie s d isc ov e r e d h im in s ta te cu st od y); U nited St at e s v. Los Sa ntos , 28 3 F

. 3d 422, 42 8- 29 ( 2d Cir

. 20 02) (h old in g s am e if d efe n d an t c an sh ow th atth e d ela y in the federa lpro secuti on was i n bad f ai th o r that i t was longer th an reason able); se eals o U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa l dana , 10 9 F. 3d 100, 10 4 ( 1stCi r. 1 99 7) (not i ng tha t i t was “pos sibl e” that a departure m i ght b e g ra nted “wh er e a car el ess o r ev ena n inno ce ntde l ay pr o duce d s en te nc i ngc o nse q u en c es so u n u su al an d u n fair th ata d ep ar tu re ” w ou ld be w arran ted ). O ur circ u it h as no t d efi nitively ruled on w he th er a dist ri ct c ourtm ay gi ve a defendant a l ess erse ntence b a s e d o nh i s l o s to p p o r tu n i ty t o r e c e i v e h i s fe d e r a lt i me c on c u rre n t w ith h is s ta te tim e. Se eU nited St at e s v. Lechuga-P once, 4 07 F .3d 89 5, 89 7- 98 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( re cog nizing d efend an t’s argum en t that sent en cing cou rt cou ld h ave d ow nw ard d ep arted to reflect l ost op p ortuni ty to ser ve concurr ent s entences but re fusi ng to re ac h th e m er its b ec au se d efe n d an t d id n ot ra is e th is a r g u m en t b efo re th e s en te n c in g c ou rt ); Un i t e d S t a t e s . v. Ji m enez-D eGarcia , 25 6 F

. A p p ’x. 83 0, 83 2- 33 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( unpub l i sh ed) ( dec l i ni ngt o r each m er i ts o fs i m i l ar“ co ncu rrent sen ten c e s ” argu m en t w he re sent en cing cou rtN o. 08

- 2308 9

co nc l ude d tha t i t co ul d n ot r ea chthi s ar g um en t, b ut st at ed th at ev en i fi t co ul d, i t woul d no t ha ve r edu ce d the d efend an t’s sent en ce). The go vernm ent i s co rr ect that n on e of o ur s i ste r ci r cui ts ha ve pr o vi ded ex te ns i ve r ea so ni ng f or al l o wi ng sente nci ng co urts to r ed u c e a defendant’s se ntence ba se d o n h i s l o sto ppo r tu ni tyt o s er ve st ate t i m e co ncurr entl y with th e fed er alti m e he re cei ved f orhi s i l l ega l reen try con viction oth er th an th at th e G uid eli n e s are advi sory. I t is a l so cor re ct that the co ngre ssi onal pu rpos e be h in d U

. S. S. G. § 5 G1. 3 ( w hi ch al l ows cour ts to i m po se fede r als en te nc es c o nc ur r en t w i ths ta te s en tence s) i s to preve nt a defendant fro m se rv i ng dup l i cati ve se n te n c es for th e s am e c ri m in al a c t. See U nited Sta tes v. B lackw el l , 49 F .3d 12 32 , 124 1 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ); but see U

. S. S. G. § 5 G1. 39 ( c) ( “( Pol i cy St ate m ent) In any othe r case i nvolvi ng an und i schar ged te rm o fi m pri sonm ent, the s en te n c e forthe i nstant offense m ay be i m posed to ru nco n c u rre n tly , pa rt ially co n c u rre n tly , or co n se c u tiv ely to the pr i orundischar ged te rm o fi m pri sonm ent t o ach ieve a r eason able pu nish m en t for th e instan t offense. ”)

. H er e, as the go vernm ent a rgued at l ength du ring Vi l l ega s- M i ra nd a’ s s entencing hea ring, Vi l l ega sM i ra nd a’ s s tat e cr i m e, dom est i c b at te ry, and hi s federa l crim e, i l l eg alr ee nt r y, r epr es en t co m pl et ely s epa r at e an d dist i nct cr i m es, and, as a re sul t, r educ in g hi s s entence to c o mpe ns a t e h i m f o rthe t i me he s pe nti n sta t e c us t o dy w ou ld n otfu rt h er th e p olic y b eh in d U .S.S.G . § 5G 1.3 ( al th ough thi s i dea has not preve nted oursi ste r ci rcui ts from all ow ing sen ten cing cou r t s t o redu ce a d efend an t’s sente nce to cre dit hi m w i th sta te ti m e ser ved, n or d oes10 N o. 08

- 2308 it directly confli c t w ith th e G uid eline ’s policy statem en t). I n any ev en t, al l o f th es e ar g um en ts ar e o f no i m p ort be ca u s e th e qu e s t i o nb e f o r e u s i s n o twh e th e rthe d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld or c an d ow n w ar d d e p a rtfor th is re aso n ( w e t ake no posi ti on) , bu t w hetherVi l l ega sM i ra nd a’ s “ concurr ent s entence s” ar gum ent has l ega l m er i t s uch that the s entencing co urt needed to address i t. Gi ve n tha t se ve r alcircuit c o ur ts ha ve he l d tha t a se nte nc i ngc o ur t ca n do wnw ar d de part f o rthi s r ea so n, a nd w e hav e no t e xpli ci tly r u led on i t ( and need not rul e o n it h er e), a d efe n d a n t i s r ea so n ab le t o b elie ve th atit m ay su c c ee d , an d w e fin d th is a rg u m en t t o b e lega lly m er i tor i ous. T he gov e rnm en t also argues th at V il legas-M irand a’s “c on c u rre n t sen te n c es ” arg u m en t lack s fac tu al m er it b ec au se V ille g a s-M ira n d a d oe s n oth av e s u fficie n t e vidence te nd i ng to sho w thati m m i gr ati on a uth or i ti es kn ew o fhi s i l l eg alr ee nt r y pr i o rt o c ha r g i nghi m , a nd ther ef or e he cannot prove thatther e w as an i ntenti onal del ay. Thi s a rgu m en t is bel i ed by the f act that i m m i gr ati on a uthor i ti es i m m edi ate l y hel d him o n a deta i ner up on h i s r el ea se fr o m s ta te c us to dy. Al th o ugh the i ssuance of t h i s deta i ner and Vil l ega s- M i ra nd a’ s r el eas e fro m st ate pri son occur ring atthe s am e t i m e m ay be pur e co i nc i den ce , i t i s no t unr ea so nabl e f o ra s en te nci ng j ud ge to ass um e that the go vernm ent had know l edge of V illeg as -M ira n d a’s lo c a t ion an d sim p ly c h os e t o w ait f orhi s r el ea se to br i ng federa lchar ges . Fur ther, Vi l l ega sM i r an da ar g ue d a t se nt en cingtha t he r eque st ed th e im m ig r at i o n de ta i ne ra nd o th erpa per wor ki n a n e ff ort to sh ow th at th e govern m en t kn ew of his il leg a l r e e nt ryN o. 08

- 2308 11

ar ound the ti m e o fhi s a rr est, but neverr ecei ved a re s po n s e fr o m th e g o v e r n me n t
. T h e e x i s t e n c e o fa ni mm i gr ati on det ainer, wh i l e no t nec ess ar i l y the st ro ngest evi dence thatthe gov er nm ent c o ul d h a v e cha rg ed Vil l ega sM i ra nd a soo ner, i s enough of a f actual basi s f or a d ist ric t cour t t o concl ud e that a d ela y occurr ed, and, i fi t s o choos es, r educe Vi l l ega s- M i ra nd a’ s s entence t o re fl ect that ti m e that he coul d have s er ved co ncurr entl y. I n sum m ar y, Vil l ega s- M i ra nd a’ s “co ncurr ent s entence s” ar gum ent had l eg al and f actualm er i t, and, gi ven that it w a s o n e o f h is p rin c ip al a rg u m en ts , Cunni ngh am dict ate s that the se ntenci ng co urt needed to add re ss i t.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON For the for ego ing r eas ons, we V A CAT E Vill egas-M irand a’s s e nt e nc e a nd R EMA ND t h is c ase to th e d istri ct cou rt f orr ese ntenci ng.

8- 27- 09