United States v. Ortmann
This text of 320 F. App'x 693 (United States v. Ortmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The government appeals the sentence imposed following Justin Douglas Ort-mann’s guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The district court suspended the imposition of sentence and imposed a five year term of probation with a condition that Ortmann spend twelve months in custody during the probationary period. We have jurisdiction [694]*694pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
The government argues that the district court lacked the authority to suspend the imposition of sentence, and to impose a fixed term of imprisonment as a condition of probation. We agree. See United States v. Murillo, 548 F.3d 1256, 1257 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that district courts do not have the power to suspend the imposition of a sentence, nor can a district court impose a constant period of imprisonment as a condition of probation); see also United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Ch. 7, Part A, § 2(a) (2007). Accordingly, we vacate and remand the sentence.1
This panel retains jurisdiction over any future appeals in this case.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
320 F. App'x 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ortmann-ca9-2009.