Court Opinion

ID: 4215644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-27 20:01:47.442896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:43.708967
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 27 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Nos. 16-10480
                                                     16-10481
                Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                D.C. Nos. 2:16-cr-00172-DJH
 v.                                                       4:12-cr-02509-DJH

PEDRO GARCIA-BANOS, a.k.a.                      MEMORANDUM *
PEDRO BANOS-GARCIA,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                   Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 23, 2017**

Before:      LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      In these consolidated appeals, Pedro Garcia-Banos appeals the 70-month

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to reentry of a removed alien, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and consecutive 21-month sentence imposed upon

revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

      Garcia-Banos contends that the district court failed to appreciate its

discretion to impose a partially concurrent sentence. At sentencing, Garcia-Banos

requested that the court run his sentences partially concurrently. The government

responded that it doubted the lawfulness of a partially concurrent sentence. The

court did not resolve the dispute so we cannot determine whether the district court

understood its discretion to impose a partially concurrent sentence. See U.S.S.G.

§ 5G1.3(d) & cmt. n.4(C) (district court may impose sentence on a new offense to

run consecutively, concurrently, or partially concurrently to undischarged term of

imprisonment resulting from revocation of supervised release). Under these

circumstances, we vacate Garcia-Banos’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).

      VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.

                                          2                          16-10480 & 16-10481