Summary
explaining that a district court "has no discretion" and "must run" an aggravated identity theft sentence consecutive to a state sentence
Summary of this case from United States v. GilbertOpinion
No. 18-50329
02-12-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRANDON NICHOLAS WARD, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00645-GW-2 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 18, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. --------
Brandon Ward appeals the district court's ruling to run his sentence on Count II consecutively under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A and in accordance with United States v. Gonzalez, 520 U.S. 1, 10 (1997). We agree that the district court has no discretion under § 1028A, and it must run the federal and state sentences consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(b)(2). The Aggravated Identity Theft statute, 18 U.S.C.§ 1028A(b)(2), requires a consecutive sentence. The district court was correct in this regard.
Ward also argues that his appellate waiver is not applicable. We decline to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the appeal waiver and instead affirm on the merits. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.