Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-31
Citations: 503 F. App'x 517
Docket Number: No. 11-50192
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50192.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 31, 2012.
Scott Michael Lesowitz, Brace R. Cas-tetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jami Lynn Ferrara, Law Office of Jami L. Ferrara, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Appellant.
Juan Carlos Hernandez-Hernandez, Post, TX, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Juan Carlos Hernandez-Hernandez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for three counts of bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 2 and 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii); and three counts of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Hernandez-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when imposing sentence below the mandatory minimum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2009).
Hernandez-Hernandez also contends that he was denied his right of allocution under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). We agree with the parties that the district court failed to afford Hernandez-Hernandez the right to allocute at sentencing, and that the error was not harmless because the court could have imposed a shorter sentence by departing further under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. See United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing so that the district court may afford Hernandez-Hernandez the opportunity to allocute.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.