Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge AGUILAR-HERNANDEZ, 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 502
Docket Number: No. 09-50016
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge AGUILAR-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge AGUILAR-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50016.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010 .
Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Jacob J.H. Yim, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gerald C. Salseda, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Ange-les, 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
Jorge Aguilar-Hernandez appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate Aguilar-Hernandez's sentence and remand for resentenc-ing.
Aguilar-Hernandez contends that the district court erred by assigning him two criminal history points, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(d), because there was insufficient evidence that he was on parole at the time he committed the instant offense. We cannot resolve the issue on this record.
Accordingly, we vacate Aguilar-Hernandez's sentence and remand to the district court for further consideration.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.