Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dewayne DONELSON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 10-50020
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dewayne DONELSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 402–402

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dewayne DONELSON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-50020.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Benjamin Robert Barron, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
W. Michael Mayock, Esquire, Law Office of W. Michael Mayock, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
The United States of America appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed on Dewayne Donelson following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of at least five grams of cocaine in the form of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand for re-sentencing.
The government contends that the district court erred when it imposed a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum after considering disparities in sentences for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine. "Congress intended not to disturb statutory mínimums through the application of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors." See United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2010). Because the district court based the sentence on a factor set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), rather than subsections (e) or (f), we vacate and remand for re-sentencing.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.