Narrative Opinion Summary
Clinton Noble appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing that the district court violated his constitutional rights by applying an upward adjustment for possession of a stolen firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4), contrary to the principles established in Apprendi and Blakely. Noble's sentencing occurred prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Booker, which deemed the Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. The record lacks clarity on how the district court would have approached sentencing had it recognized the advisory nature of the Guidelines. Consequently, the case is remanded for the district court to determine whether the sentence would have materially differed under the advisory Guidelines framework and to conduct further proceedings in line with United States v. Ameline. The decision is not designated for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Advisory Nature of Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case is remanded for the district court to reconsider sentencing under the advisory framework established post-Booker, due to uncertainty about the original sentence's alignment with advisory guidelines.
Reasoning: Noble's sentencing occurred prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Booker, which deemed the Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. The record lacks clarity on how the district court would have approached sentencing had it recognized the advisory nature of the Guidelines.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is restricted from publication and citation except under specific circumstances as outlined by court rules.
Reasoning: The decision is not designated for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Remand for Reconsideration Under Advisory Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court requires the district court to determine if the sentence would have materially differed with advisory guidelines in effect and to proceed according to United States v. Ameline.
Reasoning: Consequently, the case is remanded for the district court to determine whether the sentence would have materially differed under the advisory Guidelines framework and to conduct further proceedings in line with United States v. Ameline.
Upward Adjustment for Possession of Stolen Firearmsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant argues that the district court erred by applying an upward adjustment for possession of a stolen firearm, which he claims violates his constitutional rights as established in precedents.
Reasoning: Clinton Noble appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing that the district court violated his constitutional rights by applying an upward adjustment for possession of a stolen firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4), contrary to the principles established in Apprendi and Blakely.