Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene HOLLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-22
Citations: 377 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 09-10215
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene HOLLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, MeKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene HOLLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10215.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 22, 2010.
David L. Gappa, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Victor M. Chavez, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, MeKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Michael Eugene Hollis appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt or distribution of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate Hollis' sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
Hollis contends that the district court clearly erred when it applied a five-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(S)(B), for distributing pornographic images "for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value," because there was no evidence in the record to support its finding that he shared files in order to obtain any benefit. We agree that the record fails to establish that Hollis distributed pornographic material in order to obtain faster access to other pornographic images or any other benefit. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(S)(B) & cmt. n. 1; see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (explaining that it would be procedural error for a district court to choose a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts). Accordingly, we vacate Hollis' sentence and remand for further findings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.