Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leajon Raymond ISAACS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-30
Citations: 551 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 13-10086
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leajon Raymond ISAACS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leajon Raymond ISAACS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10086.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Dec. 30, 2013.
Amber Marie Craig, Assistant U.S., Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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
Leajon Raymond Isaacs appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence and lifetime term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Isaacs contends that the district court violated his due process rights by basing the sentence, at least in part, on unproven allegations in the revocation petition to which Isaacs did not admit. We vacate and remand for resentencing because it is not clear from the record the extent to which the district court's sentence was demonstrably based upon the unproven state and federal law violations, as opposed to the three admitted drug violations. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir.2009) (to establish due process violation at sentencing, defendant must show that his sentence was "demonstrably" based on information that lacked "some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation") (internal quotation marks omitted).
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.