United States v. Stefan Wilson

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Stefan Wilson appeals from the district court’s sentence of 236 months for wire fraud and tax evasion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 . We review the “district' court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts of this case for abuse of discretion, and the district court’s factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005). We vacate the Defendant’s sentence, and remand for resentencing.

The district court did not specifically rule on the Defendant’s objections to three enhancements contained in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). Furthermore, the district court did not rule on the Defendant’s objection to the Criminal History Category assigned in the PSR. The Court cannot properly review the sentence on appeal without rulings by the *162 district court on these objections. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); Kimbrew, 406 F.3d at 1151 . Thus, we must vacate and remand. See United States v. Denton, 611 F.3d 646, 651 (9th Cir.2010).

The Defendant’s…

dissenting:

I dissent from the majority’s disposition because it places a burden on district court judges that is inconsistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.

The majority faults the district court for not “specifically rul[ing] on [Wilson’s] objections to three enhancements contained in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR).” The disposition also states that the district court “did not rule on [Wilson’s] objection to the Criminal History Category assigned in the PSR.” The majority relies on United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir.2008)(en banc), United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005), and United States v. Denton, 611 F.3d 646, 651 (9th Cir.2010) for the proposition that we “cannot properly review the sentence on appeal without rulings by the district court on these objections.” None of these cases, however, require a district court to make a specific ruling on legal objections to a sentencing enhancement or to a defendant’s criminal history category. By imposing the sentence that it did, it is clear that the district court concluded that these legal objections were without merit.

Wilson’s argument on appeal is premised on Rule…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10394

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-114 LKK

v. MEMORANDUM *

STEFAN WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 15, 2010 San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and MILLS,** Senior District Judge.

Defendant Stefan Wilson appeals from the district court's sentence of 236

months for wire fraud and tax evasion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. y

1291 and 18 U.S.C. y 3742. We review the 'district court's interpretation of the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.…