From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Perez-Tapia

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 16, 2005
142 F. App'x 997 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted September 12, 2005.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

David P. Curnow, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kasha K. Pollreisz, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Javier Perez-Tapia appeals his 77-month sentence following his guilty plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we remand the sentence.

Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Hermoso-Garcia, 413 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005).

SENTENCE REMANDED.


Summaries of

United States v. Perez-Tapia

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 16, 2005
142 F. App'x 997 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

United States v. Perez-Tapia

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Javier PEREZ-TAPIA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 16, 2005

Citations

142 F. App'x 997 (9th Cir. 2005)