United States of America v. Jerome Williams

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. The request is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-10564
D.C. No. CR-06-00251-PMP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jerome Williams appeals from the 137-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
FILED
OCT 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-10564 2
Williams contends that the district court erred under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) when it failed to resolve a factual dispute regarding
the status of a warrant. The government concedes that the district court did not
determine whether there was an outstanding warrant because, on the erroneous
advice of the probation office, the court mistakenly believed that the existence of
the warrant was irrelevant to sentencing. The government contends, however, that
Williams’ objection was untimely. Williams has demonstrated good cause for his
late objection to the presentence report, namely, that counsel had not timely
provided the presentence report to him for review. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(i)(1)(D). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand to the district court
for resentencing. See United States v. Fernandez-Angulo, 897 F.2d 1514, 1515
(9th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (“We have consistently and frequently stated that when
the district court failed to make the required Rule 32 findings or determinations at
the time of sentencing, we must vacate the sentence and remand for
resentencing.”).
The government’s motion to strike portions of Williams’ brief is denied.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --