United States of America v. Leonires Bravo-Bucio

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEONIRES BRAVO-BUCIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10502
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00702-SPL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Leonires Bravo-Bucio appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month
sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bravo-Bucio’s counsel has filed a
brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw.
FILED
APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Having independently reviewed the record, we are unable to determine
whether the district court accepted the parties’ binding plea agreement. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). The court never stated whether it was accepting or rejecting
the agreement. See United States v. Heredia, 768 F.3d 1220, 1227 (9th Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, when the court initially calculated the Guidelines range, it did not
include the one-level early disposition departure to which the parties stipulated.
Although it granted a one-level departure later in the sentencing hearing, it is not
clear from the record whether that departure was intended to reflect the stipulated
early disposition departure or a downward variance. If the court intended to accept
the parties’ agreement and vary downward one level from the stipulated range, it
would have arrived at a Guidelines range of 37-46 months, rather than the 41-51
month range calculated by the court. Given the possibility that this is what the
court intended, and that a lower “starting point” may have resulted in a lower
sentence, we vacate and remand. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d
1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 2011). On remand, the district court shall state whether it
accepts or rejects the plea agreement and proceed accordingly. See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(c)(4)-(5).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The district court shall
appoint new counsel for Bravo-Bucio on remand.
VACATED and REMANDED.
14-10502 2

-- 2 of 2 --