United States v. Carlos Ibarra

DISCUSSION

The parties are familiar with the facts, so we need not restate them here. On

appeal, Mr. Ibarra contends that the district court made three errors in sentencing.

First, by categorically refusing to consider drug addiction as mitigating in drug

importation cases. Second, by restricting Mr. Ibarra’s presence in Mexico without

making an individualized finding that it was necessary. Third, by including terms

in the written judgment that were not announced at sentencing. The government

challenges the first issue and concedes that remand would be appropriate on the

second and third issues.

A. The Sentence

The parties disagree on the standard of review, with Mr. Ibarra advocating

for abuse of discretion and the government for plain error. Regardless, “only a

procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence will be set aside.”

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008). A district court may not

refuse to “announce its calculated Guidelines range to the parties” or “consider

expressly the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 554 (9th

Cir. 2008). However, “[t]he district court need not tick off each of the §…