You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Manley

Citation: 324 F. App'x 667Docket: No. 08-50119

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 29, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Jessica Lynn Manley appeals a 12-month sentence following the revocation of her probation. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and has decided to vacate and remand the case. Manley argues that the district court failed to consider the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range during sentencing. The court agrees that this constitutes a significant procedural error, referencing Gall v. United States, which necessitates vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing. The court does not address Manley’s additional arguments due to the decision to vacate and remand. The disposition is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291

Application: The court exercises its jurisdiction to review the district court's sentencing decision and determine if procedural errors were made.

Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and has decided to vacate and remand the case.

Consideration of Sentencing Guidelines

Application: The district court's failure to consider the Sentencing Guidelines range during sentencing is deemed a procedural error, warranting vacating and remanding for resentencing.

Reasoning: Manley argues that the district court failed to consider the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range during sentencing. The court agrees that this constitutes a significant procedural error, referencing Gall v. United States, which necessitates vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing.

Non-Publication and Precedential Value

Application: The decision in this case is not published and cannot be cited as precedent except under specific local rules.

Reasoning: The disposition is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.