Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eleazar GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-19
Citations: 66 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 01-50707; D.C. No. CR-97-01113-R-1
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eleazar GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 66
Pages: 692–693

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eleazar GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 01-50707.
D.C. No. CR-97-01113-R-1.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2003.
Decided May 19, 2003.
Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eleazar Garcia appeals the 365-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy, and drug and weapons violations under 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Garcia contends the district court erred in denying him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We review the factual basis for the district court's decision regarding acceptance of responsibility for clear error, United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 852-53 (9th Cir.2002), and on review of the record find no error, see id. at 854.
Garcia also contends the district court's statement of reasons for imposing a 365-month sentence was inadequate. The district court's imposition of a sentence significantly more severe than Garcia's prior vacated sentences created a presumption of vindictiveness. See United States v. Rapal, 146 F.3d 661, 663-64 (9th Cir.1998). The district court made no affirmative statement indicating changed facts occurring after its first two attempts at impos ing sentence which would justify the increase. Id.
We remand for reassignment to a different judge and resentencing. See United States v. Huckins, 53 F.3d 276, 280 (9th Cir.1995).
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.