Court Opinion

ID: 9494964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:51:25.129205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:44.341293
License: Public Domain

RYAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I agree that the defendant’s sentence must be vacated and that he be resentenced, I do not join in the majority’s direction to the district court that the defendant must be sentenced as a career offender. Instead, I would merely vacate the sentence for the reasons stated in the majority opinion and remand for resen-tencing, leaving it to the district court to determine, after necessary fact finding, whether the defendant is eligible for sentencing as a career offender.
Such fact finding would necessarily include a determination as to precisely what “term of imprisonment [was] imposed [fol*823lowing] revocation” of the defendant’s parole in 1991 and 1994. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)(1). The Sentencing Guidelines require courts considering a defendant’s eligibility for career offender status to add the “term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation” of probation or parole to the “original term of imprisonment.” Id. That cannot be done in this case unless the trial court first identifies the “term of imprisonment” imposed upon Parson following revocation of his parole.
Therefore, I would remand to the district court for the necessary fact finding and determination whether the defendant should be sentenced as a career offender.