Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stefan WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-27
Citations: 407 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 09-10394
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stefan WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stefan WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10394.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 15, 2010.
Filed Dec. 27, 2010.
Kristin S. Door, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, R. Steven Lapham, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Stefan Wilson appeals from the district court's sentence of 236 months for wire fraud and tax evasion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We review the "district' court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts of this case for abuse of discretion, and the district court's factual findings for clear error." United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005). We vacate the Defendant's sentence, and remand for resentencing.
The district court did not specifically rule on the Defendant's objections to three enhancements contained in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). Furthermore, the district court did not rule on the Defendant's objection to the Criminal History Category assigned in the PSR. The Court cannot properly review the sentence on appeal without rulings by the district court on these objections. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); Kimbrew, 406 F.3d at 1151. Thus, we must vacate and remand. See United States v. Denton, 611 F.3d 646, 651 (9th Cir.2010).
The Defendant's remaining allegations of procedural error — that the district court failed to inquire whether the Defendant had read the PSR and that the district court did not adopt the PSR — can be resolved by the district court on remand.
SENTENCE VACATED, REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.