Ramirez

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Rudy Ramirez appeals the district court’s decision imposing a 22-month term of imprisonment following a second revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand.

We express no opinion on the merits of the parties’ arguments about the interplay among 21 U.S.C. § 960 (b)(4), 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3). We decline to consider the government’s arguments here, because they are at odds with the representations it made to induce Ramirez’s guilty plea.

The government is plainly estopped from advancing its belated argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that Ramirez could have received a lifetime term of supervision under 21 U.S.C. § 960 (b)(4). See United States v. Gamboa-Cardenas, 508 F.3d 491, 502-04 (9th Cir.2007) (invoking equitable estoppel to prevent government from arguing 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) safety valve did not apply to defendant, when defendant waived right to testify at trial because he believed government’s representation that safety valve would apply). Ramirez waived his constitutional right to trial by jury based, in part, on the government’s explicit promises…