22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T440,MEMORANDUM Micah James Godfrey appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges thé 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand for resentencing. Godfrey argues, and the government agrees, that remand is warranted because the district court improperly imposed the custodial sentence in order to promote Godfrey’s rehabilitation. We agree that the record reflects that the court imposed the length of the sentence to ensure that Godfrey would continue to receive mental health treatment in custody. We, therefore, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See Tapia v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2391 , 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011); United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 282 (9th Cir.2011) (rehabilitation “cannot be the reason” for imposing a term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release). VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46d,

MEMORANDUM

Micah James Godfrey appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges thé 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Godfrey argues, and the government agrees, that remand is warranted because the district court improperly imposed the custodial sentence in order to promote Godfrey’s rehabilitation. We agree that the record reflects that the court imposed the length of the sentence to ensure that Godfrey would continue to receive mental health treatment in custody. We, therefore, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. See Tapia v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2391 , 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011); United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 282 (9th Cir.2011) (rehabilitation “cannot be the reason” for imposing a term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release).

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.