Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anna Rea YELLOW OWL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 09-30300
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anna Rea YELLOW OWL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WÁRDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 692–694

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anna Rea YELLOW OWL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30300.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Eric Vincent Carroll, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James B. Obie, Obie Law, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WÁRDLAW, 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
Anna Rea Yellow Owl appeals from the 50-month within-Guidélines sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for distribution of cocaine in a public housing facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 860. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
•Although Yellow Owl challenges only the substantive reasonableness of her sentence on appeal, we "must review sentencing decisions for procedural error, even where no claim of procedural error is raised." United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1116 (9th Cir.2010).
A district court procedurally errs when it fails to calculate or calculates incorrectly the Guidelines range. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Here, the record indicates that the district court stated at sentencing that the Guidelines range was 41 to 52 months, when the correct Guidelines range was 41 to 51 months. Although the government contends that this was a mere misstatement, because we cannot tell from the record whether the district court relied on this incorrect range in selecting the 50-month sentence, we vacate for resentenc-ing. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1105-06 (9th Cir.2009).
Because we remand to the district court based.on procedural error, we do not address the substantive reasonableness of the district court's sentence. However, we note that, on remand, the district court should directly address Yellow Owl's mitigating arguments, including that her mother died of alcohol abusé when she was a young child and that she was removed from her aunt's care due to abuse, and that she persevered in obtaining an education and providing for her children. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 992-93 ("[W]hen a party raises a specific, nonfrivolous argument tethered to a relevant § 3553(a) factor in support of a requested sentence, then the judge should normally explain why he accepts or rejects the party's position.").
VACATED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.