Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lee MANN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-11
Citations: 426 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: Nos. 10-10161, 10-10163
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lee MANN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lee MANN, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 10-10161, 10-10163.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 11, 2011.
Karla Delord, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Eisenberg, I, Esquire, David Eisenberg, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Christopher Lee Mann appeals from the consecutive 44-month and 24-month sentences imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.
Mann contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on factors excluded from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). It is unclear from the record whether those factors served as the primary basis for the sentences imposed. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
In light of this disposition, we decline to reach Mann's other arguments.
VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.