831 F.3d 1253
9th Cir.2016Background
- In 2013 Lajai Pridgette was arrested after reports of shots fired from a rented Mustang; police recovered a handgun, shell casing, marijuana, and counterfeiting equipment. A jury convicted him on multiple counts; district court sentenced him to 137 months and ordered restitution.
- The PSR attributed two prior state sentences to Pridgette and assigned criminal-history points based on purported custody durations (60 days and 365 days). Pridgette repeatedly objected, asserting the PSR overstated his actual time served (6 days and 8 days, respectively).
- Probation and the government relied on various state-court records and referenced detention-facility documents that were never placed in the record; the government later conceded those detention records were not in the record and may not exist.
- The district court adopted the PSR and its addendum over Pridgette’s objections; on appeal the government confessed error and requested remand for resentencing to develop the record.
- The Ninth Circuit had to decide whether remand for resentencing should be open (permit new evidence) or closed (limit to the existing record) given the government’s failure to produce corroborating detention records despite opportunities to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand for resentencing should be on an open or closed record | Pridgette: closed remand is appropriate because the government had full opportunity and failed to prove custody durations | Government: open remand to allow supplementation and a fully developed record | Remand on existing (closed) record — court found the government had a full opportunity and failed to meet its burden; vacated sentence and restitution and remanded for resentencing on the existing record |
| Whether there was a “full inquiry” into the factual dispute over prior custody time | Pridgette: district court and government had multiple chances; argument and records in district court sufficed as a full inquiry | Government: argued for open remand to permit supplementation and further fact-finding | Court held there was a full inquiry because government squarely raised issues and had fair opportunities to present evidence; thus closed remand permissible |
| Whether the district court’s sentence and restitution were supported by the record | Pridgette: PSR overstated prior custody; sentence and restitution unsupported | Government: initially defended PSR, later conceded insufficiency | Court vacated both the sentencing and restitution orders for lack of support in the record |
| Whether the appellant waived request for closed remand (concurrence/dissent issue) | Pridgette: did not expressly request closed remand in opening brief but supplemental briefing allowed the issue | Government/Concurring judge: appellant waived and court should follow default open-remand rule absent party argument | Dissent (O’Scannlain): would have remanded on open record because defendant waived request for closed remand and majority overreached; majority found waiver cured by panel’s supplemental briefing and government’s failure to press waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (default rule: remand for sentencing errors is on an open record; two exceptions identified)
- United States v. Reyes-Oseguera, 106 F.3d 1481 (9th Cir. 1997) (closed remand appropriate where government failed to prove facts after full inquiry)
- United States v. Ponce, 51 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (vacating enhancement based on hearsay and remanding for resentencing on existing record)
- United States v. Becerra, 992 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1993) (remand on closed record where government failed to substantiate higher quantity attribution)
- United States v. Espinoza-Morales, 621 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2010) (declining to give government another opportunity where it failed to meet its burden after presenting evidence)
- United States v. Flores, 725 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2013) (open remand required where district court imposed enhancement sua sponte and government did not have full opportunity to present evidence)