Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul LOPEZ-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-31
Citations: 286 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 05-30523
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul LOPEZ-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul LOPEZ-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-30523.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed July 31, 2008.
Jack B. Haycock, Esq., USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nicolas V. Vieth, Esq., Federal Defender’s of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Poca-tello, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raul Lopez-Espinoza appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Lopez-Espinoza contends that the district court failed to specify the reasons for imposing a partially consecutive sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), (c), and 3584(b). We agree and conclude that the judge's statements were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Cf. United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056, 1063-67 (9th Cir.2005).
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.