United States v. Yasir Millan-Sanchez
680 F. App'x 638
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Millan-Sanchez was subject to a federal sentence imposed after a parole violation arose from an earlier Utah state conviction.
- On remand the district court imposed 60-month concurrent sentences but did not state whether those sentences would run concurrently or consecutively to any additional Utah time for the parole violation.
- Millan-Sanchez appealed, arguing the district court was required to specify concurrent or consecutive status under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).
- The district court deferred the concurrency decision, reasoning Utah (or a Utah sentencing authority) was better positioned to decide whether to credit federal time against any state-imposed term.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether the district court erred in law or fact and whether it violated the appellate mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3584(a) required the district court to state whether its sentence runs concurrent or consecutive to prospective state time | Millan-Sanchez: § 3584(a) required an express concurrent/consecutive determination | Government: § 3584(a) does not apply where the defendant is not subject to an undischarged term; district court may decline to specify | Court: § 3584(a) did not apply (state had not yet sentenced), and the statute allows situations where the court need not specify; affirm. |
| Whether deferring the concurrency decision (and any factual misstatement about which Utah authority would decide credit) was reversible error or a violation of the mandate | Millan-Sanchez: Deferral was clear error and based on incorrect factual premise about who would decide credit | Government: Any factual mistake is immaterial; Utah authorities will ultimately determine credit and overall sentence, so district court permissibly deferred | Court: No reversible error and no violation of mandate; district court properly considered Setser and had discretion to defer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (discusses § 3584(a) applicability when a state has not yet imposed sentence and effect of district court silence on concurrency)