United States v. Angel Lopez-Ramirez ( 2017 )

  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 22 2017
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-10044
                    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 5:16-cr-00020-BLF
                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Northern District of California
                      Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
                              Submitted December 18, 2017**
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
          Angel Lopez-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
    illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.
                 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).
          The government concedes, and we agree, that the district court plainly erred
    by failing to address Lopez-Ramirez personally to ask if he wanted to speak before
    sentencing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii); United States v. Daniels, 
    760 F.3d 920
    , 925-26 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
    See Daniels, 760 F.3d at 926.
          Lopez-Ramirez asks us to reach his other claims of error to provide the
    district court “guidance” on remand. We decline to do so because we do not know
    what sentencing arguments the parties will make on remand, how the court will
    respond to those arguments, or what sentence it will impose. See United States v.
    551 F.3d 1120
    , 1124 (9th Cir. 2009) (declining to issue an advisory
    opinion based on speculation about possible future events).
          VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.
                                             2                                   17-10044

Document Info

DocketNumber: 17-10044

Filed Date: 12/22/2017

Modified Date: 12/22/2017