Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, y. Calvin Tyrone COMBS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-02
Citations: 540 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 12-50453
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Tyrone COMBS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 753–753

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Tyrone COMBS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50453.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
Daniel Hyun Kun Ahn, Assistant U.S., Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Calvin Tyrone Combs appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month custodial sentence and 28-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentenc-ing.
Combs contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Guidelines range and by failing to explain the sentence imposed. Because the record supports Combs's contentions, we remand for further proceedings. Upon remand, the court shall calculate the applicable Guidelines range and explain the sentence in light of Combs's arguments and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
In light of our decision, we do not reach the question of whether Combs's sentence is substantively reasonable.
VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.