Court Opinion

ID: 9823720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:08:09.412997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:25.718467
License: Public Domain

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the grant of the petition for rehearing. Here, the district court’s error was only failing to give the parties notice that it would consider confidential Presentence Investigative Reports of other defendants. Accordingly, there is no need to depart from our general rule that resen-tencing is to be done by the original sentencing judge. United States v. Acosta-Chavez, 727 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2013). Because there is no need for the district judge to put the reports out of his mind, reassignment is not necessary to preserve the appearance of justice. See United States v. Mikaelian, 168 F.3d 380, 387-88 (9th Cir. 1999). The reassignment is an unnecessary and undeserved slap at the district judge as well as a “waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.” Id.