Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-26
Citations: 363 F. App'x 501
Docket Number: No. 09-50060
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 501–502

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50060.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Amie Danielle Rooney, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen E. Hoffman, Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Ruben Perez-Castillo appeals from the 55-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Perez-Castillo contends, and the government concedes, that his sentence should be vacated and remanded because he was denied his right of allocution at sentencing. The district court failed to accord Perez-Castillo the right to allocute at sentencing and "[w]e are not able to say that the district court could not have lowered [Perez-Castillo's] sentence had he been given an opportunity to speak" thus, we vacate and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir.2005).
In light of this disposition, we decline to address Perez-Castillo's argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Finally, we deny Perez-Castillo's request for reassignment to a different district court judge. See United States v. Rapal, 146 F.3d 661, 665-66 (9th Cir.1998).
SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.