United States v. Robert Kent , 554 F. App'x 611 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 06 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50186
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00463-PSG-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT ALLEN KENT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 8, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and CLIFTON, Circuit
Judges.
1. When a district court rejects a defendant’s non-frivolous sentencing
argument, it must provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. See United
States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1010–11 (9th Cir. 2013). The district court
abused its discretion by failing to do so in response to Kent’s assertion that the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
page 2
distribution enhancement shouldn’t apply. See United States v. Kimbrew, 406
F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005). Because we reverse for resentencing on this
ground, we need not address Kent’s claim that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable.
2. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion by requiring Kent to
participate in the Computer Monitoring Program as a condition of release. It’s
entirely appropriate to leave “the details of what [monitoring] technologies should
be used” to the Probation Office. United States v. Quinzon, 643 F.3d 1266, 1274
(9th Cir. 2011). If technology has changed by the time Kent is released from
prison, and he believes that Probation has not met its “continuing obligation to
ensure not only the efficacy of the computer surveillance methods used, but also
that they remain reasonably tailored so as not to be unnecessarily intrusive,” id., he
may seek relief from the district court at that time.
REVERSED AND REMANDED