United States of America v. Jason Andrew Dunlap

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JASON ANDREW DUNLAP,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30211
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00107-SI-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 10, 2018
Portland, Oregon
Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ,** District
Judge.
Jason Andrew Dunlap (“Defendant”) appeals his sentence, arguing that the
district court miscalculated the applicable guideline range and erroneously
concluded it lacked authority to sentence Defendant below the statutory mandatory
minimum. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Rosemary Márquez, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
We vacate and remand for resentencing in light of United States v. Reinhart, 893
F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2018).
The parties first addressed Reinhart in Rule 28(j) letters filed shortly before
oral argument. Defendant had previously conceded that the prior state conviction
charged in the Information triggered a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). However, Reinhart constitutes an intervening change
in the law that may affect the analysis of this issue, and the parties agree that
remand is appropriate to allow the district court to evaluate in the first instance the
potential impact of Reinhart on the applicable statutory mandatory minimum.
Because we find that remand is appropriate in light of Reinhart, we decline to
address at this juncture the other issues raised in Defendant’s appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.

-- 2 of 2 --