Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant, convicted of transporting illegal aliens and aiding and abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II), challenges a 12-month prison sentence imposed by the district court. The appellant argues that the court failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to upwardly depart from the sentencing guidelines due to an under-representation of his criminal history, as required under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a). In line with the Supreme Court's decision in Burns v. United States, and affirmed by United States v. Evans-Martinez, the court is obligated to provide specific, reasonable notice when contemplating deviations from the advisory guidelines. The government concedes that such notice was not given, and the presentence report did not meet the notice requirement, as per United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez. Consequently, the appellate court vacates the sentence and remands the case for resentencing consistent with the proper procedural requirements. The appellate court notes that this decision is not for publication and cannot be cited within the circuit, following Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Post-Booker Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The requirement for reasonable notice of upward departure from the advisory guidelines is upheld after the Booker decision, as confirmed by the appellate court in this case.
Reasoning: This requirement is upheld post-Booker, as affirmed in United States v. Evans-Martinez.
Deficiencies in Presentence Report Noticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The presentence report failed to provide the necessary notice of the court's consideration of a sentence outside the advisory guidelines range, leading to the vacating of the sentence.
Reasoning: Additionally, the presentence report did not fulfill the necessary notice requirement, referencing United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez.
Notice Requirement for Upward Departuresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court must provide reasonable notice to the parties when it intends to impose a sentence above the advisory guideline range, identifying the specific grounds for such a departure.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court's ruling in Burns v. United States requires that a district court must provide reasonable notice to the parties when contemplating an upward departure from the advisory guidelines, specifically identifying the grounds for such a departure.