United States v. Rafael Miranda

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10446
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:19-cr-00167-LJO-1
v.
RAFAEL MIRANDA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER, *** District
Judge.
Rafael Miranda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have
*
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 Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review sentencing decisions for an abuse
of discretion and unpreserved procedural objections for plain error. United States v.
Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We vacate and remand.
Miranda contends that the district court failed to explain adequately the above-
Guidelines sentence and relied on the incorrect Guidelines range because it
erroneously classified his supervised release violation as a Grade B violation rather
than a Grade C violation. A judge must explain the rationale relied upon when
imposing an above-guidelines sentence, and the explanation must be sufficient to
permit meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Carr, 761 F.3d 1068, 1083
(9th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc)); see also United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting
that the “specific reason” requirement for an above-Guidelines sentence applies to
revocation of supervised release (citation omitted)). Here, the district court imposed
an above-Guidelines sentence without any explanation at all.
Additionally, as the government concedes, the sole supervised release
violation to which Miranda admitted—possession of a controlled substance—is a
Grade C violation under the circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2). Although
the government contends that the record supports a finding that Miranda possessed
the controlled substances for sale and such conduct would qualify as a Grade B
violation, the district court dismissed at sentencing all other charged violations,
2 19-10446
including a charge that Miranda violated the terms of his supervision by committing
the crime of possession of a controlled substance for sale. The district court made
no factual findings and provided no explanation for its determination that Miranda’s
admitted violation was a Grade B, rather than Grade C, violation.
Because we cannot determine from the current record the basis for the
sentencing determinations or whether the district court relied on the correct
Guidelines range, we remand. Cf. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.
1338, 1347 (2016) (“Where . . . the record is silent as to what the district court might
have done had it considered the correct Guidelines range, the court’s reliance on an
incorrect range in most instances will suffice to show an effect on the defendant’s
substantial rights.”); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1908
(2018) (remand is appropriate remedy where Guidelines error results from “a
mistake made in the presentence investigation report by the Probation Office, which
works on behalf of the District Court”).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3 19-10446