Ramos

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Ramos appeals his sentence imposed for his guilty plea convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 . See *582 United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir.2006) (as amended). We vacate the sentence imposed and remand to the district court for resentencing, and reject Ramos’s remaining challenges.

The district judge acknowledged that the Guidelines are advisory, but then refused to exercise his discretion because he believed the Guidelines to be presumptively reasonable. We have recently held that a district court may not presume the Guidelines sentencing range is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) 1 (“The district court may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable. Nor should the Guidelines factor be given more or less weight than any other. While the Guidelines are to be respectfully considered, they are one factor among the § 3553(a) factors that are to be taken into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence.” (citations…