Opinion ID: 148698
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Two standards of review are clear. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines (because it is a pure question of law). United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240, 1261 (9th Cir. 2009). And we review for clear error the district court’s finding of fact (because it is a pure question of fact). Id. But it is unclear what standard of review applies to the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts at hand (which typically is 8836 UNITED STATES v. LAURIENTI viewed as a mixed question of fact and law). In many opinions, we state, without qualification, that we review for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Loew, 593 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2010) (“‘We review . . . the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion . . . .’ ” (quoting United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008)), cert. denied, 2010 WL 1130267 (U.S. Apr. 19, 2010) (No. 09-9760). In recent years, however, we have “noted an intracircuit conflict as to whether the standard of review for application of the Guidelines to the facts is de novo or only for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Yip, 592 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 908 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 654 (2008)); accord United States v. Berger, 587 F.3d 1038, 1041 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Contreras, 581 F.3d 1163, 1164 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), adopted in relevant part, 593 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (per curiam); United States v. Thornton, 511 F.3d 1221, 1227 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008). We have avoided the question because the standard of review has not changed the outcome: The same result is reached under either standard. Thornton, 511 F.3d at 1227 n.4. We join that growing number of cases in declining to reach the issue.