United States v. Anthony Melbourne

MEMORANDUM

Anthony D. Melbourne appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for second degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Melbourne contends that the sentence at the top of the advisory guideline range is unreasonably long in light of his social background, age at the time of the crime, and lack of any relevant mental health treatment. “On appeal, we first consider whether the district court committed significant procedural error, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.” See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). A district court should normally explain why it accepts or rejects a party’s “specific, nonfrivolous argument tethered to a relevant § 3553(a) factor in support of a requested sentence.” See id. at 992-93. The record reflects that the district court failed to do so in the instant case. See id. Specifically, the district court failed to acknowledge or address at sentencing Melbourne’s mitigating arguments, including that he was 15 years old at the time of the…